From: Jim Rees <rees@umich.edu>
To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@tonian.com>, Peng Tao <bergwolf@gmail.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:04:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110919020431.GA18269@merit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430B356025@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benny Halevy [mailto:bhalevy@tonian.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:20 AM
> To: Jim Rees; Peng Tao; Myklebust, Trond
> Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; peter honeyman
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put
>
> We need to decide on a process here :)
> If we would like to maintain a staging tree in front of Trond's then
to simplify
> merging and rebasing, fixes to code that's already upstream, i.e. in
linux-2.6
> or already queued in nfs-2.6, that we decide to send to Trond ahead of
> queue need to be queued in front of stuff in the staging tree and the
latter
> should be rebased on top of them.
Unless we're talking about a large merge, I tend to prefer patches. They
are much easier to review...
I guess the problem is that we now have a patch in Trond's tree that
conflicts with the workqueue patch that's staged for later in Benny's tree.
I think what I need to do is send Benny a set of patches that starts with
the same patch I sent Trond, and follows with one that adds the workqueue.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-19 2:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-13 20:24 [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put Jim Rees
2011-09-14 10:19 ` Benny Halevy
2011-09-19 1:09 ` Myklebust, Trond
2011-09-19 2:04 ` Jim Rees [this message]
2011-09-19 2:06 ` Myklebust, Trond
2011-09-19 3:01 ` Benny Halevy
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-09-13 16:16 Peng Tao
2011-09-13 16:44 ` Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110919020431.GA18269@merit.edu \
--to=rees@umich.edu \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=bergwolf@gmail.com \
--cc=bhalevy@tonian.com \
--cc=honey@citi.umich.edu \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).