Re: [PATCHSET 1][PATCH 0/6] Filesystem AIO read/write

[Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> > Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
> > > > Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
> > > > > and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately the unplugging changes in Jen's block tree have trashed these
> > > > patches to a degree that I'm not confident in my repair attempts.  So I'll
> > > > drop the fasio patches from -mm.
> > >
> > > I took a quick look and the conflicts seem pretty minor to me, the unplugging
> > > changes mostly touch nearby code.
> > 
> > Well...  the conflicts (both mechanical and conceptual) are such that a
> > round of retesting is needed.
> > 
> > > Please let know how you want this fixed up.
> > >
> > > >From what I can tell the comments in the unplug patches seem to say that
> > > it needs more work and testing, so perhaps a separate fixup patch may be
> > > a better idea rather than make the fsaio patchset dependent on this.
> > 
> > Patches against next -mm would be appreciated, please.  Sorry about that.
> > 
> > I _assume_ Jens is targetting 2.6.21?
> 
> When is the next -mm likely to be out ? 
> 
> I was considering regenerating the blk unplug patches against the
> fsaio changes instead of the other way around, if Jens were willing to
> accept that. But if the next -mm is just around the corner then its
> not an issue.

I don't really care much, but I work against mainline and anything but
occasional one-off generations of a patch against a different base is
not very likely.

The -mm order should just reflect the merge order of the patches, what
is the fsaio target?

-- 
Jens Axboe