From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763660AbZE0OXu (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 10:23:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761983AbZE0OXm (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 10:23:42 -0400 Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:56886 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761539AbZE0OXl (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 10:23:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:23:32 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Jan Kara Cc: LKML , npiggin@suse.de, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] Fix page_mkwrite() for blocksize < pagesize Message-ID: <20090527142332.GB10842@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Jan Kara , LKML , npiggin@suse.de, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org References: <1243429268-3028-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1243429268-3028-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:00:57PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > The series is against 2.6.30-rc7. The first two patches are just > small cleanup and should be merged separately (Ted should have the > ext4 cleanup rebased on top of current ext4 tree). So I can take the cleanup (which will be different given the changes that are ready to get merged once the merge window opens), but it looks like the the second ext4 patch can't go in until we get agreement that changes to the VFS layer should go in, correct? So we'll have a merge order dependency here. (And this one will be the 2nd merge order dependency we have in the ext4 tree, since I also have some patches in the unstable portion of the tree which are waiting for some tracing patches to go in.) OK, what I'll probably do is to merge the core VFS patch plus the 2nd ext4 patch into the ext4 patch queue in the unstable portion of the queue for testing purposes, but I won't actually push the VFS core changes. We can figure out later who actually pushes the ext4 patch which utilizes the new VFS infrastructure. - Ted