From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix aio completion vs unwritten extents Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 02:30:07 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20100622122144.302857146@bombadil.infradead.org> <20100716060405.GA32712@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100716060405.GA32712@infradead.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Jul 16, 2010, at 2:04 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Given that this still hasn't been picked up in any other tree would > people mind if we push patches 1 and 2 through the XFS tree? > > I some more changes that sit ontop of this, and it would make my > life a lot easier. Thanks for bringing this up. I was going to ask if you had any changes in patch1 of this series since I was about to put them into the ext4 tree and I didn't want to have any merge conflicts (or have to force a tree rewind/rebase) if it turned out if there had been some changes and some other tree landed in Linus's tree first. In other words, since we both have patches that depend on your first patch, one easy way of handling things is that we both put them into our respective fs trees, and as long as the patch doesn't change git should do the right thing when Steve or Linus merges them into their linux-next or linus trees, respectively. Do you have any objections with this? - Ted From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o6G6RMSV249044 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:27:23 -0500 Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 27AF315DFECC for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-5.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Kw0TT5AYiHAfCOMS for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix aio completion vs unwritten extents Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) From: Theodore Tso In-Reply-To: <20100716060405.GA32712@infradead.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 02:30:07 -0400 Message-Id: References: <20100622122144.302857146@bombadil.infradead.org> <20100716060405.GA32712@infradead.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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Jul 16, 2010, at 2:04 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Given that this still hasn't been picked up in any other tree would > people mind if we push patches 1 and 2 through the XFS tree? > > I some more changes that sit ontop of this, and it would make my > life a lot easier. Thanks for bringing this up. I was going to ask if you had any changes in patch1 of this series since I was about to put them into the ext4 tree and I didn't want to have any merge conflicts (or have to force a tree rewind/rebase) if it turned out if there had been some changes and some other tree landed in Linus's tree first. In other words, since we both have patches that depend on your first patch, one easy way of handling things is that we both put them into our respective fs trees, and as long as the patch doesn't change git should do the right thing when Steve or Linus merges them into their linux-next or linus trees, respectively. Do you have any objections with this? - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs