From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l8DNmi4p015396 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:48:45 -0700 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:48:29 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: state of the cvs tree Message-ID: <20070913234829.GW734179@sgi.com> References: <20070912121938.GA16870@lst.de> <46E870AB.30906@sgi.com> <20070913104000.GB3351@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070913104000.GB3351@lst.de> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Mark Goodwin , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:40:00PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:05:15AM +1000, Mark Goodwin wrote: > > > > > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >looks like the cvs tree is broken currently - fs/xfs/ is merged up to > > >2.6.23-rc, but everything else is still at 2.6.22-rc state leading to > > >various compile failures. > > > > I think Tim is in the middle of the .23 update and still has some more > > to push in. Tim? > > > > What else do you (or anyone for that matter) have in the pipeline for XFS? > > Whilst we're taking huge patches and cleanups, let's get them all in asap. > > I have a long pipeline waiting, but as Dave said most of that really > shouldn't go into 2.6.24. > > There's one patch from me that I sent a long time ago that's a trivial > cleanup and should probably go into 2.6.24 still, that's > > "[PATCH] kill unused IOMAP_EOF flag" Ah, that's still sitting in my tree from a past life. It fell through the cracks, I think. It should go in to .24 > One thing that is in my alreayd submitted queue that should go into CVS > ASAP after a small review is: > > "[PATCH] kill probe_* sysctl leftovers" *nod*. yeah, that's pretty trivial so should go as well. > this is stuff that never was in mainline, so putting it in seems fine. > > Then I have a patch from Eric sitting in the front of my queue, > > "[PATCH V2] refactor xfs_mountfs for clarity & stack savings" > > which might be a little too big for 2.6.24, but should at least go into > CVS ASAP. I think Eric would be really happy to see it in 2.6.24 aswell > because that means FC8 could actually mount xfs out of the box without > running out of stack or something. Yeah, that's been floating about for a bit and has been tested in FC8 so seems like a no-brainer for .24. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group