From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF26429E05 for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:13:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F2CAC002 for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id EcQ1IuH4BpKAa7F6 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:13:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:13:39 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35 v4] separate operations from flags in the bio/request structs Message-ID: <20160229171339.GA17755@infradead.org> References: <1456343292-14535-1-git-send-email-mchristi@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1456343292-14535-1-git-send-email-mchristi@redhat.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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: mchristi@redhat.com Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, philipp.reisner@linbit.com, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, osd-dev@open-osd.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, lars.ellenberg@linbit.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com Any reason you've dropped my ACK for the previous version? Jens, is this something you're fine with? Would be great to figure out a way to get this into 4.6. There's probably going to be plenty of conflicts, so having some sort of stable base tree would be nice.. (Talking about conflicts, seems like the block for-linus and for-next trees already conflict quite a bit..) _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs