From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030261AbaGPGAP (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 02:00:15 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36739 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934442AbaGPGAO (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 02:00:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:00:05 +1000 From: NeilBrown To: Ian Kent Cc: autofs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] autofs4: support RCU-walk Message-ID: <20140716160005.6c43668d@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: <1405481098.2527.9.camel@perseus.fritz.box> References: <20140709233541.4525.25151.stgit@notabene.brown> <1405481098.2527.9.camel@perseus.fritz.box> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1-123-gae895c (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/CNjf.8X8joeXB44spg2oeiO"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/CNjf.8X8joeXB44spg2oeiO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:24:58 +0800 Ian Kent wrote: > On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 09:41 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > autofs4 currently doesn't support RCU-walk - it immediately > > aborts any attempt at RCU-walk to force REF-walk for path name > > lookup. >=20 > As discussed I don't have time to properly test these just now but I'll > do my best to review the patches and return to test them later. Thanks. >=20 > My impression is that you will be submitting these patches rather than > expecting me to pick them up and submit them. If that's not what your > expecting please let me know. I had assumed that you would take them as you are listed as the maintainer. However if you would like me to send them on I can certainly do that. You seem to send via Andrew Morton so I'll do that when they seem to be rea= dy if you like. >=20 > I appreciate you including me in this work, all to often things get > merged that I'm miss and while I may not have identified any problem > with them at the time at least I would be aware of what I might need to > look at when problems arise. > =20 Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I have this idea that all patches *must* at least be Cc:ed to the maintainer and if they are as intrusive as these, they *must* be approved. Maybe others behave different? Thanks, NeilBrown --Sig_/CNjf.8X8joeXB44spg2oeiO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBU8YU5Tnsnt1WYoG5AQK31BAAomCdO1FMBN6B8AEMIwrrUjm6sAs2UH+w IMNLjG5B9I6AXcUNX9BxY5VT+6hv+IwkTBAgBmECW2vuLv5pLjWZdUptGSkSDUss +tPwdBoIxrMY0slNV+jarFNl/yDfB2mKz5B42IF/gIeA9F6J1/inFoBkec4eJOfZ 9VuW1J/9g4gKZQeBkGf6E1ZpBYanR/Sk+Q67GbXVtiRIYDCAUkLLFDrF5/VYoYmE DR8PO34oTZMzmkR+SDpoL83bIUUYFLuxMfwSed4Myh40Civ1zJuFK+99gjxbdvom bCU1vjkLeSg2c8bjMVfvDfHGZ5NFommD4cnlgA4Hk7ZFMpqMggEWaJtST2636XP0 yci6wYmn0cvy+jjAQ/UUTnYEyHP4L5OOkNx0/vczmzLKtJnq6lmtmSY48pM2D5V3 HGFtRSzB26RiLKsbNqztnE3v48r7X3HzE3N/VbeLLWZPLxPJpFu1lo26s60BOdW1 UcS0HpA1zAKpTSUdBq0faofbqL+BgrTITRHE+rcAJzBa1AVZOJzRXYNJSSZUGfD7 ma+N0TmWgr1CsVedWZnst8L/JdG0WnstTJAqMmuwFVw1p9DD2K2+cB1HCYfquzb5 BYQ90VlZAFPYVoOr7q3yqEyXVGYc1bNd4dzDXFiy4cE4Mk62B8KcEZ+F1F4v1bBR 1n4qwEdmDUs= =TOWw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/CNjf.8X8joeXB44spg2oeiO--