xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: state of the cvs tree

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: state of the cvs tree
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:48:29 +1000
Cc: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070913104000.GB3351@lst.de>
References: <20070912121938.GA16870@lst.de> <46E870AB.30906@sgi.com> <20070913104000.GB3351@lst.de>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:40:00PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:05:15AM +1000, Mark Goodwin wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >looks like the cvs tree is broken currently - fs/xfs/ is merged up to
> > >2.6.23-rc, but everything else is still at 2.6.22-rc state leading to
> > >various compile failures.
> > 
> > I think Tim is in the middle of the .23 update and still has some more
> > to push in. Tim?
> > 
> > What else do you (or anyone for that matter) have in the pipeline for XFS?
> > Whilst we're taking huge patches and cleanups, let's get them all in asap.
> 
> I have a long pipeline waiting, but as Dave said most of that really
> shouldn't go into 2.6.24.
> 
> There's one patch from me that I sent a long time ago that's a trivial
> cleanup and should probably go into 2.6.24 still, that's
> 
>       "[PATCH] kill unused IOMAP_EOF flag"

Ah, that's still sitting in my tree from a past life. It fell through
the cracks, I think. It should go in to .24

> One thing that is in my alreayd submitted queue that should go into CVS
> ASAP after a small review is:
> 
>       "[PATCH] kill probe_* sysctl leftovers"

*nod*. yeah, that's pretty trivial so should go as well. 

> this is stuff that never was in mainline, so putting it in seems fine.
> 
> Then I have a patch from Eric sitting in the front of my queue,
> 
>       "[PATCH V2] refactor xfs_mountfs for clarity & stack savings"
> 
> which might be a little too big for 2.6.24, but should at least go into
> CVS ASAP.  I think Eric would be really happy to see it in 2.6.24 aswell
> because that means FC8 could actually mount xfs out of the box without
> running out of stack or something.

Yeah, that's been floating about for a bit and has been tested in
FC8 so seems like a no-brainer for .24.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>