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 2539C7CBF for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:54:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1617AC004 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id G3SoLGHqNPj25OSj for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5JEsRG3024873 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:54:27 -0400 Received: from dhcp-186-20.bos.redhat.com (dhcp-185-29.bos.redhat.com [10.16.185.29]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5JEsQJj006128 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:54:26 -0400 Message-ID: <51C1C622.7050704@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:54:26 -0400 From: Ric Wheeler MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/60] xfs: patch queue for 3.11 References: <1371617468-32559-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130619143537.GN20932@sgi.com> <20130619144441.GA14834@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20130619144441.GA14834@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 06/19/2013 10:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 09:35:37AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: >> >Dave, >> > >> >On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:50:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> > >This is my patch queue for 3.11 as it stands right now. >> > >> >Getting all of this in for 3.11 does not strike me as being realistic. You >> >need to think about how this can be split up. I see that you have rebased >> >Jeff's log size validation patch set after your rearrangement. I'd rather >> >you'd taken Jeff's series first and then made your changes. Now we can't pull >> >in Jeff's work without pulling in a bunch of rearrangement that hasn't been >> >fully discussed. You have also crowded out Chandra's quota work. We had an >> >agreement with him to go for 3.11 with that work which you have broken. > I think 3.11 is a realistic target for all the code movearound, but > maybe not as part of the normal pull request for -rc1. If we make sure > it's really moving code around and not changing it I think a sending a > second pull request to Linus saying this is just code movearounds we > wanted to do when the churn causes least problems with actual code work > he should be fine with it. Just to chime in here, we have a lot of resources focused on testing these XFS updates both internally with our QA team and with a range of other RH partners. I am confident we can shake out any integration concerns in time. Thanks! Ric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs