From: Jim Rees <rees@umich.edu>
To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@tonian.com>, Peng Tao <bergwolf@gmail.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:04:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110919020431.GA18269@merit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430B356025@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benny Halevy [mailto:bhalevy@tonian.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:20 AM
> To: Jim Rees; Peng Tao; Myklebust, Trond
> Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; peter honeyman
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put
>
> We need to decide on a process here :)
> If we would like to maintain a staging tree in front of Trond's then
to simplify
> merging and rebasing, fixes to code that's already upstream, i.e. in
linux-2.6
> or already queued in nfs-2.6, that we decide to send to Trond ahead of
> queue need to be queued in front of stuff in the staging tree and the
latter
> should be rebased on top of them.
Unless we're talking about a large merge, I tend to prefer patches. They
are much easier to review...
I guess the problem is that we now have a patch in Trond's tree that
conflicts with the workqueue patch that's staged for later in Benny's tree.
I think what I need to do is send Benny a set of patches that starts with
the same patch I sent Trond, and follows with one that adds the workqueue.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-19 2:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-13 20:24 [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put Jim Rees
2011-09-14 10:19 ` Benny Halevy
2011-09-19 1:09 ` Myklebust, Trond
2011-09-19 2:04 ` Jim Rees [this message]
2011-09-19 2:06 ` Myklebust, Trond
2011-09-19 3:01 ` Benny Halevy
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-09-13 16:16 Peng Tao
2011-09-13 16:44 ` Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110919020431.GA18269@merit.edu \
--to=rees@umich.edu \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=bergwolf@gmail.com \
--cc=bhalevy@tonian.com \
--cc=honey@citi.umich.edu \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.