From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Sync and VFS scalability improvements Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:19:28 +1000 Message-ID: <20130801061928.GR7118@dastard> References: <1375244150-27296-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, davej@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, glommer@parallels.com To: Sedat Dilek Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:48:40AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > This series of patches is against the curent mmotm tree here: > > > > http://git.cmpxchg.org/cgit/linux-mmotm.git/ > > > > "Current" is not precise enough... above tree has git-tags. It's most certainly precise. "current" always means the master branch at the time the series was posted. I.e. same definition as "top of tree".... > As I am not a linux-fs expert I can try to test, preferably against a > Linux-next release. > Would you like to test against "vanilla" mmotm or is Linux-next > suitable in your eyes? mmotm is based on the linux-next tree at the time the tree was made. > I have seen some typos... are you interested in such feedback? feel free to point them out. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com