From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m6NFaSWX022847 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:36:29 -0700 Message-ID: <48875040.9090400@thebarn.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:37:36 -0500 From: Russell Cattelan MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] XFS: Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes References: <1216556394-17529-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1216556394-17529-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20080722042829.GB27123@infradead.org> <20080722053019.GI6761@disturbed> <20080722072733.GA15376@infradead.org> <20080723000548.GG5947@disturbed> <488692FB.1010101@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <488692FB.1010101@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: markgw@sgi.com Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Mark Goodwin wrote: > > > Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:27:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> ... >>> I only fear >>> we'll never get it in with the current review and commit latencies >>> for XFS :( >> >> I can see this being a big issue in the not-too-distant future..... > > [getting off-topic for this thread, but anyway ..] > This is already a big issue, obviously, and has been for some time. > > Internally, we're attempting to refine our patch acceptance processes, > (e.g. gitify our internal dev tree and mirror it on oss so it's much > easier to push back out to oss). I'm sure you have seen this before: http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=cattelan/xfs-import/.git;a=summary' That is a running mirror of the ptools tree into git. (via the cvs tree) It would be really nice to move all xfs development to git finally shut down the whole ptools -> cvs update process. This would help facilitate creation of more "experimental" trees and/or branches so there would not be such a long delay of getting patches distributed. > But the QA overhead remains a stubborn > problem. I think we're going to have to ask for QA tests (both regression > and performance) to be written as part of the patch acceptance policy - > under this policy, merely passing existing QA will not be sufficient. > Comments? > > We have recently set up external access to a system for QA and > regression testing for Christoph's use .. perhaps that should > be a permanent offering? > > Cheers > -- Mark >