From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757955AbdEKTYm (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 May 2017 15:24:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58518 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756612AbdEKTYk (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 May 2017 15:24:40 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 3FC62C05973F Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dhowells@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 3FC62C05973F Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <68231d1a-9902-ce3d-73e3-6e74754832e4@Netapp.com> References: <68231d1a-9902-ce3d-73e3-6e74754832e4@Netapp.com> <149451118535.4599.16084557087363834548.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Anna Schumaker Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, mszeredi@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jlayton@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/14] VFS: Introduce superblock configuration context [ver #2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9615.1494530672.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 20:24:32 +0100 Message-ID: <9616.1494530672@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Thu, 11 May 2017 19:24:40 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Anna Schumaker wrote: > Is there any way to split the NFS patch into multiple pieces? Are you okay with a patch or two that add code that is unconnected in that patch, but connected in a later one? David