From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tytso@mit.edu Subject: Re: writev corruption and 64-bit quota patches for 2.6.33-rc1? Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:21:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20091208212109.GT27692@thunk.org> References: <20091208110043.GC4095@quack.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:51078 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966439AbZLHVVI (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:21:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091208110043.GC4095@quack.suse.de> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 12:00:43PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > Hi Ted, > > do you plan on merging my fixes for writev filesystem corruption and > 64-bit quota patches? The writev patch is independent of any other patch > and should go in ASAP, 64-bit quota patch depends on generic quota code > change so either I can merge it or you can merge a bit later (it's a small > change for ext4). Why don't I take the writev patch, and let you merge the 64-bit quota patch along with the generic quota changes? Does that make sense? The only thing that worries me a tiny bit is that there are some quota bug fixes which the OpenVZ folks have submitted, that I need to review and haven't gotten to yet, and there's a chance they may conflict with your 64-bit ext4 quota changes. But I'm sure we can deal with any potential merge conflicts should they come up. Regards, - Ted