LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT

LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT

[Josef Bacik]

Hello,

If you have patches in btrfs-next, make sure they are the right ones so we don't
have to rebase and repull and merge and all that crap for this merge window.  If
I'm missing stuff that's fine, I can throw that on top, but you need to make
sure I have the right versions of stuff already in the tree so I can rebase it
_now_ rather than trying to figure out how to fix it later.  Thanks!

Josef

Re: LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT

[Liu Bo]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:26:12AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> If you have patches in btrfs-next, make sure they are the right ones so we don't
> have to rebase and repull and merge and all that crap for this merge window.  If
> I'm missing stuff that's fine, I can throw that on top, but you need to make
> sure I have the right versions of stuff already in the tree so I can rebase it
> _now_ rather than trying to figure out how to fix it later.  Thanks!

Hi Josef,

Thanks for your maintaining work.

Could you please pull this into btrfs-next?  I don't see new bug reports after
this version.

- Btrfs: snapshot-aware defrag
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2058911/

thanks,
liubo

> 
> Josef
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT

[David Sterba]

Please add this patch to next queue

btrfs: limit fallocate extent reservation to 256MB
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1752311/

Tested-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>

thanks,
david

Re: LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT

[Alex Lyakas]

Hi Josef,
can you please consider including these two patches from Jan 28:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2057051/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2057071/

I realize they have "V2" label, although the cover letter had "V3",
this was my bad. However, they both apply to what you have now in
btrfs-next.

Thanks,
Alex.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:12 PM, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
> Please add this patch to next queue
>
> btrfs: limit fallocate extent reservation to 256MB
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1752311/
>
> Tested-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
>
> thanks,
> david
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT

[Chris Mason]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 08:35:30AM -0700, Alex Lyakas wrote:
> Hi Josef,
> can you please consider including these two patches from Jan 28:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2057051/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2057071/
> 
> I realize they have "V2" label, although the cover letter had "V3",
> this was my bad. However, they both apply to what you have now in
> btrfs-next.

It's really ok if we add more after I pull in the current next, but I
don't want to have to rebase the current next again.  So, I'd rather
that we focus on patches currently in -next and make sure they are the
correct versions etc.

-chris

Re: LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT

[Filipe Brandenburger]

Hi Josef,

Please remove the following patch:

Btrfs: move fs/btrfs/ioctl.h to include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
(55e301fd57a6239ec14b91a1cf2e70b3dd135194 in your btrfs-next.git)

It's not fully cooked and I'm working on a second version of the patch
that will do a little more rearranging of the header files according
to the discussion on IRC a while ago.

Thanks,
Filipe


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If you have patches in btrfs-next, make sure they are the right ones so we don't
> have to rebase and repull and merge and all that crap for this merge window.  If
> I'm missing stuff that's fine, I can throw that on top, but you need to make
> sure I have the right versions of stuff already in the tree so I can rebase it
> _now_ rather than trying to figure out how to fix it later.  Thanks!
>
> Josef
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT

[Chris Mason]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:37AM -0700, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
> Hi Josef,
> 
> Please remove the following patch:
> 
> Btrfs: move fs/btrfs/ioctl.h to include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
> (55e301fd57a6239ec14b91a1cf2e70b3dd135194 in your btrfs-next.git)
> 
> It's not fully cooked and I'm working on a second version of the patch
> that will do a little more rearranging of the header files according
> to the discussion on IRC a while ago.
> 

Please send those as incremental fixes unless something is horribly
broken in the current patch.

-chris

Re: LAST CALL FOR BTRFS-NEXT

[Filipe Brandenburger]

Ok,

Nothing terribly broken with it, I can do with incremental commits on
top of it, thanks!

Filipe


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:37AM -0700, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
>> Hi Josef,
>>
>> Please remove the following patch:
>>
>> Btrfs: move fs/btrfs/ioctl.h to include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
>> (55e301fd57a6239ec14b91a1cf2e70b3dd135194 in your btrfs-next.git)
>>
>> It's not fully cooked and I'm working on a second version of the patch
>> that will do a little more rearranging of the header files according
>> to the discussion on IRC a while ago.
>>
>
> Please send those as incremental fixes unless something is horribly
> broken in the current patch.
>
> -chris