From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [192.26.58.214]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m9SBrulf022211 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:53:56 -0700 Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B92258F80B7 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4906EB5B.2020004@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:37:15 +1100 From: Mark Goodwin Reply-To: markgw@sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Urgent queue References: <20081027133010.GA30607@infradead.org> <20081028064150.GS4985@disturbed> In-Reply-To: <20081028064150.GS4985@disturbed> 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: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:30:10AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> Two patches that are small bugfixes / features that are what I consider the >> immediately merge queue. > > The entire set of 30 patches has passed XFSQA on my test box.... individually (by series) or only after all 30? Bisectability is important, as Christoph alluded to in another thread. Is the intention to try and take this lot for 28-rc3? I think Lachlan is now very close to a pull req for .28, depending on his testing for the memleak and deadlock fixes - time is now getting pretty short :) Cheers -- Mark