From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:35060 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753145AbbBBPAd (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:00:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:00:32 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/20] nfsd: implement pNFS operations Message-ID: <20150202150032.GD22301@fieldses.org> References: <1421925006-24231-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1421925006-24231-11-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150129203346.GA11064@fieldses.org> <20150202124349.GA15598@lst.de> <20150202142832.GC22301@fieldses.org> <20150202145619.GA18387@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150202145619.GA18387@lst.de> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:56:19PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 09:28:32AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > I didn't notice anything that looked like a big problem to me, so absent > > any objections I'll commit the revised versions for 3.20 once we figure > > out how to handle the xfs stuff. > > Do you want the resend to be on top of Jeffs locks tree, or do you > want me to be based just on the nfsd changes, which would require > a fairly trivial merge once both of the trees hit mainline? I'm planning to pull Jeff's tree and then apply these on top. (Even if the conflict's fairly trivial I'm just happier being able to test the combination exactly as they're commited.) I'll do that now, should be pushed out in an hour or two. --b. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CF67F61 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:00:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EC3304032 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:00:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org [173.255.197.46]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Evk8vXGycGoNmdhq for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:00:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:00:32 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/20] nfsd: implement pNFS operations Message-ID: <20150202150032.GD22301@fieldses.org> References: <1421925006-24231-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1421925006-24231-11-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150129203346.GA11064@fieldses.org> <20150202124349.GA15598@lst.de> <20150202142832.GC22301@fieldses.org> <20150202145619.GA18387@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150202145619.GA18387@lst.de> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:56:19PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 09:28:32AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > I didn't notice anything that looked like a big problem to me, so absent > > any objections I'll commit the revised versions for 3.20 once we figure > > out how to handle the xfs stuff. > > Do you want the resend to be on top of Jeffs locks tree, or do you > want me to be based just on the nfsd changes, which would require > a fairly trivial merge once both of the trees hit mainline? I'm planning to pull Jeff's tree and then apply these on top. (Even if the conflict's fairly trivial I'm just happier being able to test the combination exactly as they're commited.) I'll do that now, should be pushed out in an hour or two. --b. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/20] nfsd: implement pNFS operations Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:00:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20150202150032.GD22301@fieldses.org> References: <1421925006-24231-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1421925006-24231-11-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150129203346.GA11064@fieldses.org> <20150202124349.GA15598@lst.de> <20150202142832.GC22301@fieldses.org> <20150202145619.GA18387@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, xfs-VZNHf3L845pBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150202145619.GA18387-jcswGhMUV9g@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:56:19PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 09:28:32AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > I didn't notice anything that looked like a big problem to me, so absent > > any objections I'll commit the revised versions for 3.20 once we figure > > out how to handle the xfs stuff. > > Do you want the resend to be on top of Jeffs locks tree, or do you > want me to be based just on the nfsd changes, which would require > a fairly trivial merge once both of the trees hit mainline? I'm planning to pull Jeff's tree and then apply these on top. (Even if the conflict's fairly trivial I'm just happier being able to test the combination exactly as they're commited.) I'll do that now, should be pushed out in an hour or two. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html