From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: LSF/MM Schedule and improving discard support Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:51:29 -0400 Message-ID: <1460044289.2311.5.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <57067F19.3030404@sandisk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:33407 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751397AbcDGPvk (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:51:40 -0400 Received: from localhost by e34.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:51:39 -0600 In-Reply-To: <57067F19.3030404@sandisk.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche , Jens Axboe Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 08:39 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Hello James, > > Some time ago I proposed to discuss how to improve discard support > during the LSF/MM (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/110048). > I would appreciate it if this would be added to the LSF/MM agenda > since there has been no progress yet for the patch series I posted in > December 2015. Well, adding a cc to the lsf@ list to interest the attendees might have been a good idea. The basic problem with this topic is that it didn't really garner any interest when you proposed it. It also really just looks like there's nothing to discuss: you just propose the unifying patch and people discuss and modify that and it either gets accepted or not depending on the level of the objections. James