From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4DF91A1F4A for ; Tue, 10 May 2016 04:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:52:10 +0200 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [RFC v3] [PATCH 0/18] DAX page fault locking Message-ID: <20160510115210.GJ11897@quack2.suse.cz> References: <1461015341-20153-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1462829283.3149.7.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1462829283.3149.7.camel@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: "Verma, Vishal L" Cc: "jack@suse.cz" , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Ted Tso , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: Hi! On Mon 09-05-16 21:28:06, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 23:35 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > I've noticed that patches 1 through 12 of your series are relatively > independent, and are probably more stable than the remaining part of > the series that actually changes locking. Yes. > My dax error handling series also depends on the patches that change > zeroing in DAX (patches 5, 6, 9). > > To allow the error handling stuff to move faster, can we split these > into two patchsets? > > I was hoping to send the dax error handling series through the nvdimm > tree, and if you'd like, I can also prepend your patches 1-12 with my > series. So I'm thinking how to best merge this. There are some ext4 patches which are not trivial (mainly "ext4: Refactor direct IO code"). These can go in as far as I'm concerned but there is a potential for conflicts in ext4 tree and I'd definitely want to give them full test run in the ext4 tree. The best what I can think of is to pull ext4 related changes into a stable branch in ext4 tree and then pull that branch into nvdimm tree. Ted, what do you think? If you agree, I can separate the patches into three parts - one for ext4 tree, stable patches for nvdimm tree, and then remaining patches. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:52:10 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: "Verma, Vishal L" Cc: "jack@suse.cz" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Ted Tso Subject: Re: [RFC v3] [PATCH 0/18] DAX page fault locking Message-ID: <20160510115210.GJ11897@quack2.suse.cz> References: <1461015341-20153-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1462829283.3149.7.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1462829283.3149.7.camel@intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi! On Mon 09-05-16 21:28:06, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 23:35 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > I've noticed that patches 1 through 12 of your series are relatively > independent, and are probably more stable than the remaining part of > the series that actually changes locking. Yes. > My dax error handling series also depends on the patches that change > zeroing in DAX (patches 5, 6, 9). > > To allow the error handling stuff to move faster, can we split these > into two patchsets? > > I was hoping to send the dax error handling series through the nvdimm > tree, and if you'd like, I can also prepend your patches 1-12 with my > series. So I'm thinking how to best merge this. There are some ext4 patches which are not trivial (mainly "ext4: Refactor direct IO code"). These can go in as far as I'm concerned but there is a potential for conflicts in ext4 tree and I'd definitely want to give them full test run in the ext4 tree. The best what I can think of is to pull ext4 related changes into a stable branch in ext4 tree and then pull that branch into nvdimm tree. Ted, what do you think? If you agree, I can separate the patches into three parts - one for ext4 tree, stable patches for nvdimm tree, and then remaining patches. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org