From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o1CK2EJC020796 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:02:14 -0600 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:03:59 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs_export_operations.commit_metadata Message-ID: <20100212200359.GA23361@fieldses.org> References: <20100211220454.26466.37578.stgit@case> <20100211220505.26466.99037.stgit@case> <1265986006.3201.112.camel@doink1> <20100212174706.GB22633@infradead.org> <20100212195647.GQ23654@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100212195647.GQ23654@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: bpm@sgi.com Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Alex Elder On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 01:56:47PM -0600, bpm@sgi.com wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:47:07PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > if we care enough about the returned error. But Ben is working against > > the NFS tree which doesn't have that change yet. > > > > We can deal with that by either commiting the old variant to the nfs > > tree and then leaving sending Stephen a patch to fix it up in -next, > > or just not apply the xfs commit_metadata implementation yet, and wait > > for it until both the xfs and nfs trees have hit mainline. Assuming the xfs tree's something stable, I could also just go ahead and pull it into the nfsd tree. (Or we could do it the other way around--as long as when the merge window opens we try to send the pull requests in the same order.) --b. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs