From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] xfs: pass a 64-bit count argument to xfs_iomap_write_unwritten Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:30:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20150202073024.GA9399@lst.de> References: <1421925006-24231-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1421925006-24231-17-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150129205232.GB11064@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , xfs@oss.sgi.com To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150129205232.GB11064@fieldses.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:52:32PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > Who can give us ACKs on these last five fs/xfs patches? (And is it > going to cause trouble if they go in through the nfsd tree?) We'd need ACKs from Dave. He already has pulled in two patches so we might run into some conflicts. Maybe the best idea is to add the exportfs patch to both the XFS and nfsd trees, so each of them can pull in the rest? Or we could commit the two XFS preparation patches to both tree and get something that compiles and works in the nfsd tree. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs