From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:53288 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932191AbeE3ThJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2018 15:37:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 15:37:07 -0400 From: Mike Snitzer To: Jens Axboe Cc: Kent Overstreet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, colyli@suse.de, darrick.wong@oracle.com, clm@fb.com, bacik@fb.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] convert block layer to bioset_init()/mempool_init() Message-ID: <20180530193707.GB6568@redhat.com> References: <20180521144703.GA19303@redhat.com> <4b343aef-e11c-73ba-1d88-7e73ca838cad@kernel.dk> <20180521150439.GA19379@redhat.com> <61e30dcf-a01c-f47d-087a-12930caf9aef@kernel.dk> <20180521151817.GA19454@redhat.com> <20180521160907.GA19553@redhat.com> <20180530133629.GC5157@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 30 2018 at 2:55pm -0400, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/30/18 7:36 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > So revisiting this patchset: are you inclined to take these changes (I > > assume yes)? If so, what would you need in order to get them staged for > > 4.18? I'll start with offering my review in reply to the DM patch. I'd > > much prefer to see this level of change go in sooner rather than later. > > Yeah I'd like to take the changes, but we might have to wait for > 4.19 at this point. It'd certainly help to have the dm bits reviewed, > as they are some of the larger ones. The grunt of the others are mostly > trivial and smaller in scope. I _really_ would like to see this land for 4.18. It'll avoid downstream backport problems (due to all the churn in this patchset). As I'm sure you've seen I reviewed and Acked-by the DM patch. I mentioned I've been chatting with Kent, he is available if anything needs a v2 for whatever reason. Would you be OK adding a single sentence description to each driver's patch header (rather than leaving empty like how Kent submitted)? Or should Kent resubmit the entire set with that boilerplate header for each patch?