On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:35:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:04:00AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:56:19PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > they are rebased not to require the inode allocator patchset. I think
> > > > that Jan
> > > > is also going to repost his 'Fix overallocation in
> > > > xfs_buf_allocate_memory()'
> > > > based upon Dave's suggestions. It's best not to depend upon that
> > > > either. What
> > > > do you say, Dave?
> > >
> > > I reorder my local patch set and repost it after running it through
> > > some testing....
> > Sorry, I totally misunderstood the initial issue - I though Ben had my
> > series applied, and thus yours didn't apply.
> > I still think reordering is better - I'm quite busy and I'd rather get
> > your series reviewed first before redoing and retesting the inode
> > allocator changes.
> I stand corrected - it doesn't need a rebase - all it needs is to be
> applied on top of Jan Kara's bug fix. Looking back, that's exactly
> what I said in patch 0 of the series....
> So it should be good to go as Jan's fix needs to go to Linus before
> 3.5 is released...
When I brought this up I was certain that I couldn't get Dave's series to apply
without Christoph's. Now it works just fine like so:
~/xfs # cat patches/series
# from christoph
# from dave
# Mark's patches
# seek data seek hole with unwritten extents
# from Alain
# jan's patch is gonna get a new rev
# dave's patches
# christoph's patches
# from Jan Englehardt
So it appears there is no need to rebase Dave's series. Apologies! I got it
wrong, not sure how.