From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:29:15 -0700 Message-ID: <20131108152915.GI10212@kernel.dk> References: <527411DD.7050008@oracle.com> <527414DE.9090704@kernel.dk> <52756583.2030808@oracle.com> <527BE7FA.90904@oracle.com> <20131107192545.GA20624@moria.home.lan> <527C2AA9.9040608@oracle.com> <20131108125307.613427c04a7527c4359e6443@canb.auug.org.au> <20131108020805.GI3842@kmo> <527C4D35.8000907@oracle.com> <20131108073324.GA31662@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:53073 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751516Ab3KHP30 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:29:26 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131108073324.GA31662@infradead.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Dave Kleikamp , Kent Overstreet , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zach Brown , Olof Johansson , Andrew Morton On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the > direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping > the immutable iovecs in. > > For the latter I think the immutable iovecs are useful and do want to > see them eventually, but they were merged at the latest possible point > in the merge window and cause breakage all over the tree, so they very > clearly are not ready at this point, and I fear even more breakage if > they do get merged. I agree, I've had this very conversation with Kent as well. The merge of it has gone a lot worse than I had feared, and the resulting series at this point is a non-bisectable mess. The fallback plan was to pull it from the 3.13 tree and shove it into a 3.14 tree with more for-next simmering. It is in progress, just takes a while... -- Jens Axboe