From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 01:24:28 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Jens Axboe Cc: Goldwyn Rodrigues , hch@lst.de, jack@suse.cz, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10 v13] merge request: No wait AIO Message-ID: <20170620002428.GM10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20170619163348.15542-1-rgoldwyn@suse.de> <20170619233439.GL10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1de9d545-8811-4dfa-22db-f5172f122a95@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1de9d545-8811-4dfa-22db-f5172f122a95@kernel.dk> Sender: Al Viro List-ID: On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 05:36:05PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 06/19/2017 05:34 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 05:15:16PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 06/19/2017 10:33 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > >>> Jens, > >>> > >>> As Christoph suggested, I am sending the patches against the block > >>> tree for merge since the block layer changes had the most conflicts. > >>> My tree is at https://github.com/goldwynr/linux/tree/nowait-block > >> > >> I can merge it for 4.13, but I need Al to be happy with it first. > > > > FWIW, it's really a matter of who gets more conflicts - I'm OK with the > > general shape of that code and it could go through either tree (or both, > > for that matter, if an immutable branch is promised). > > I'm still hopeful that the write hint patchset will make it as well, > which will definitely conflict with this. So if you don't mind, I'd > like to queue it through the block tree. The block for-4.x/ branches > are not rebased. Fine by me; the only problem I see there at the moment is with ext4 and xfs ->read_iter() not buggering off on nowait (xfs one has xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED); done before it gets to generic_file_read_iter()).