From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Cody Subject: Re: [RFC v6] RBD: Add support readv,writev for rbd Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:42:22 -0500 Message-ID: <20170224114222.GA16659@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170221065003.26103-1-jazeltq@gmail.com> <20170224035236.GB2613@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58726 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751154AbdBXLmZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:42:25 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jaze Lee Cc: Josh Durgin , Jason Dillaman , Kevin Wolf , Max Reitz , qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ceph-devel , tianqing On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:09:31PM +0800, Jaze Lee wrote: > 2017-02-24 11:52 GMT+08:00 Jeff Cody : > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:50:03PM +0800, jazeltq@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: tianqing > >> > >> Rbd can do readv and writev directly, so wo do not need to transform > >> iov to buf or vice versa any more. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: tianqing > >> --- > > > > > > This is marked as an RFC still - is this a series you would like to see in > > 2.9? > > Yes. What should i do if i like it in 2.9 > Ideally you would submit the series as a non-RFC patch (that is, it would have progressed to a normal patch away from RFC). But in this case, it seems to me that this patch has progressed beyond RFC; is there any reason it is still marked as RFC instead of just a patch? It looks OK to me.