Re: [PATCH 00/60] xfs: patch queue for 3.11

From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
To: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/60] xfs: patch queue for 3.11
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:31:44 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1371756704.22504.65.camel@chandra-dt.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130620191433.GY32736@sgi.com>

On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:14 -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Dave,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:33:47AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:54:26AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > > > On 06/19/2013 10:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > >On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 09:35:37AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > >>>On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:50:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > >>>> >This is my patch queue for 3.11 as it stands right now.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Getting all of this in for 3.11 does not strike me as being realistic.  You
> > > > >>>need to think about how this can be split up.  I see that you have rebased
> > > > >>>Jeff's log size validation patch set after your rearrangement.  I'd rather
> > > > >>>you'd taken Jeff's series first and then made your changes.  Now we can't pull
> > > > >>>in Jeff's work without pulling in a bunch of rearrangement that hasn't been
> > > > >>>fully discussed.  You have also crowded out Chandra's quota work.  We had an
> > > > >>>agreement with him to go for 3.11 with that work which you have broken.
> > > >
> > > > >I think 3.11 is a realistic target for all the code movearound, but
> > > > >maybe not as part of the normal pull request for -rc1.  If we make sure
> > > > >it's really moving code around and not changing it I think a sending a
> > > > >second pull request to Linus saying this is just code movearounds we
> > > > >wanted to do when the churn causes least problems with actual code work
> > > > >he should be fine with it.
> > > > 
> > > > Just to chime in here, we have a lot of resources focused on testing
> > > > these XFS updates both internally with our QA team and with a range
> > > > of other RH partners.
> > > 
> > > This isn't about the size of your QA team or the number of other RH partners.
> > > 
> > > We had an agreement with Chandra to work toward getting his quota work in 3.11
> > > and it appears that Dave has crowded him out with a rearrangement of code which
> > > we had no agreement would go into 3.11.
> > 
> > What I posted is what I'm *proposing* for 3.11. You can't have an
> > agreement with first having a proposal....
> > 
> > > Further, Dave has taken Jeff's log
> > > size validation series hostage by rebasing it on top of this rearrangement of
> > > code.
> > 
> > Ben, I think you're being a little melodramatic here. I asked Jeff
> > if it was OK to rebase his patchset, and he said that was fine:
> > 
> > http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2013-June/027270.html
> > 
> > You don't have to take my rebase of Jeff's patches - you're welcome
> > to take them direct from Jeff, but then I'll have to send reviews
> > asking for changes to problems I found when integrating it so that's
> > going to delay any integration you can do of that series. Please let
> > Jeff and myself know what you want to do here...
> > 
> > > If there is a strategic reason that RH needs to have the kernel/libxfs code
> > > rearranged and separated in 3.11 I would have liked to have heard about it
> > > before now.  I'm all for getting this work done, but not at the expense of
> > > crowding out other XFS contributors.
> > 
> > You are making a mountain out of a molehill. I had an itch, and I
> > scratched it. Simple as that. It is only a couple of days work.
> 
> You jumped the queue in front of the other cars.  I'm asking you not to do
> that, even if one of the drivers was kind enough to let you in.
> 
> > If you think it's too much for 3.11, then just say so and leave it at that.
> > I'll move it to my for-3.12 queue and you won't see it again until after
> > 3.11-rc1 is released...
> 
> Lets see where Chandra is at with his quota work.  If he has already rebased on
> top of your series I don't see a good reason to rearrange things now.  If he

No, I haven't rebased on top of Dave's patches. I will post my patchset
by EOD today.

> hasn't, I'd like focus on getting his code merged before pulling in your
> rearrangement.  Now that you've rebased Jeff's work, I don't see much point in
> redoing that, so maybe that will have to wait for the rearrangement to get
> merged.
> 
> For now we'll focus on the first 13 patches.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs