From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o1MJpjEa150835 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:51:45 -0600 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:53:53 -0600 From: bpm@sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] commit_metadata export operation v6 Message-ID: <20100222195353.GD10942@sgi.com> References: <20100217200426.13409.32688.stgit@case> <20100220233804.GA15015@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100220233804.GA15015@fieldses.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, aelder@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com Hey Bruce, On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 06:38:04PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:05:05PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hey Bruce, > > > > Here is the latest version of the knfsd sync changes. I have addressed the > > suggestions provided by Christoph, Trond, Dave, and Alex. > > > > In this latest version I have fixed up the few nits in the nfsd patch that > > Christoph pointed out yesterday. I also have simplified the xfs patch as > > suggested by Dave. > > Thanks, applying. > > (Do you the second (xfs) patch to go in through the nfsd tree as well, > or should that go in through xfs maintainers after the nfsd merge?) I chatted with Alex. It sounds like the best thing is for both patches to go in through the nfsd tree since they need to go in order. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs