From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757644Ab3KHQPQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:15:16 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:53773 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756278Ab3KHQPP (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:15:15 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:15:08 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com>,
        Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zach Brown <zab@zabbo.net>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the  tree
Message-ID: <20131108161508.GL10212@kernel.dk>
References: <527414DE.9090704@kernel.dk>
 <52756583.2030808@oracle.com>
 <527BE7FA.90904@oracle.com>
 <20131107192545.GA20624@moria.home.lan>
 <527C2AA9.9040608@oracle.com>
 <20131108125307.613427c04a7527c4359e6443@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20131108020805.GI3842@kmo>
 <527C4D35.8000907@oracle.com>
 <20131108073324.GA31662@infradead.org>
 <20131108152915.GI10212@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131108152915.GI10212@kernel.dk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Nov 08 2013, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the
> > direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping
> > the immutable iovecs in.
> > 
> > For the latter I think the immutable iovecs are useful and do want to
> > see them eventually, but they were merged at the latest possible point
> > in the merge window and cause breakage all over the tree, so they very
> > clearly are not ready at this point, and I fear even more breakage if
> > they do get merged.
> 
> I agree, I've had this very conversation with Kent as well. The merge of
> it has gone a lot worse than I had feared, and the resulting series at
> this point is a non-bisectable mess. The fallback plan was to pull it
> from the 3.13 tree and shove it into a 3.14 tree with more for-next
> simmering.
> 
> It is in progress, just takes a while...

And it's done and pushed out. for-3.13/drivers is still missing the
bcache bits, those will get merged back in once they don't depend on the
immutable changes anymore.

Dave, this should make your life easier. And Stephen, if you pull the
new for-next, it should make yours a lot easier as well.

-- 
Jens Axboe