From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: Limit number of integrity segments Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:41:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1284096730-13147-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <4C8A1EB3.7020101@fusionio.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:47792 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753657Ab0IJMmi (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:42:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C8A1EB3.7020101@fusionio.com> (Jens Axboe's message of "Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:04:03 +0200") Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , "James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com" , "christof.schmitt@de.ibm.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" >>>>> "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. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering