From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: Limit number of integrity segments Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:01:06 +0200 Message-ID: <4C8A2C12.5030509@fusionio.com> References: <1284096730-13147-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <4C8A1EB3.7020101@fusionio.com> <20100910125224.GA13211@schmichrtp.mainz.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from 0122700014.0.fullrate.dk ([95.166.99.235]:35558 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753726Ab0IJNBJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:01:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100910125224.GA13211@schmichrtp.mainz.de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christof Schmitt Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , "James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On 2010-09-10 14:52, Christof Schmitt wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 08:41:27AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe writes: >> >> Jens> So this is a bug and we want to fix it, but it's not a strict >> Jens> regression against earlier releases. So based on that .37 should >> Jens> be fine. But there's definitely some reasons for shoving it into >> Jens> .35 as well. What was your intention? >> >> I was aiming at 2.6.37 since it's a pretty big change to wedge in this >> late in the .36 cycle. And the zfcp DIX support is only experimental. >> >> But that's really Christof's call. My concern wrt. 2.6.36 is purely >> process-related, I don't have any technical objections. > > It is a missing piece for the experimental DIX support in zfcp. Since > we tell everybody that it is "experimental", merging the patches only > for 2.6.37 is fine for me. Great, I'll queue it up for 2.6.37. -- Jens Axboe