From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: from smtp.mail.umich.edu ([141.211.14.81]:60551 "EHLO
	hackers.mr.itd.umich.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755195Ab1JRNtj (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:49:39 -0400
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:49:35 -0400
From: Jim Rees <rees@umich.edu>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: The patch that wouldn't die
Message-ID: <20111018134935.GA17831@umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org>

Boaz, try to remain calm.

Trond, please remove this patch from your nfs-for-next branch.  I can send a
revert patch if you like.

Uh-oh, I see it's been sent to stable too.

commit f0574a5592deb1f99fa583c525d01e7fa131f430
Author: Peng Tao <bergwolf@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu Sep 22 21:50:13 2011 -0400

    pnfsblock: init pg_bsize properly
    
    pg_bsize is server->wsize/rsize by default. We would want to use the lseg
    length.
    
    Signed-off-by: Peng Tao <peng_tao@emc.com>
    Signed-off-by: Jim Rees <rees@umich.edu>
    Cc: stable@kernel.org [3.0]
    Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>

Explanation follows:

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:22:45 -0400
From: Jim Rees <rees@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] pnfsblock: init pg_bsize properly
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>

Boaz Harrosh wrote:

  On 09/23/2011 04:50 AM, Jim Rees wrote:
  > From: Peng Tao <bergwolf@gmail.com>
  >
  > pg_bsize is server->wsize/rsize by default. We would want to use the lseg
  > length.
  >
  > Signed-off-by: Peng Tao <peng_tao@emc.com>
  > Signed-off-by: Jim Rees <rees@umich.edu>

  If you want to get lazy about this patch and take the easy way out.
  The least you can do is supply the same fix to that other place
  that has the same bug.

  This is not nice. You have identified a deficiency in the generic
  layer, You know that objects would have the same bug, (because I told you)
  and you just don't care. I have spent plenty of times slaving over
  blocks code when changing or fixing generic layer. (And Benny even more
  then me)

  And when you will actually send a patch that does exactly the same in
  two places, which access only generic members, you might see that it
  might be better to fix it in a single place at the generic layer.

  NACK. I'm ok with getting lazy like below, but only if you also
  add the same code to objio_osd.c

Sorry, I sent the wrong patch.  Trond, please drop this one.