From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: writev corruption and 64-bit quota patches for 2.6.33-rc1? Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:58:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20091209105851.GC4863@quack.suse.de> References: <20091208110043.GC4095@quack.suse.de> <20091208212109.GT27692@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: tytso@mit.edu Return-path: Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:47807 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754732AbZLIK6v (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 05:58:51 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091208212109.GT27692@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue 08-12-09 16:21:09, tytso@mit.edu wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 12:00:43PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > Hi Ted, > > > > do you plan on merging my fixes for writev filesystem corruption and > > 64-bit quota patches? The writev patch is independent of any other patch > > and should go in ASAP, 64-bit quota patch depends on generic quota code > > change so either I can merge it or you can merge a bit later (it's a small > > change for ext4). > > Why don't I take the writev patch, and let you merge the 64-bit quota > patch along with the generic quota changes? Does that make sense? Yes, fine for me. I just didn't want to merge ext4 quota changes without your approval. > The only thing that worries me a tiny bit is that there are some quota > bug fixes which the OpenVZ folks have submitted, that I need to review > and haven't gotten to yet, and there's a chance they may conflict with > your 64-bit ext4 quota changes. But I'm sure we can deal with any > potential merge conflicts should they come up. Yes, I need to take a look at those as well. So far they don't seem to be conflicting AFAICS. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR