[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 00/60] xfs: patch queue for 3.11

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/60] xfs: patch queue for 3.11
From: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:54:26 -0400
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130619144441.GA14834@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1371617468-32559-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130619143537.GN20932@xxxxxxx> <20130619144441.GA14834@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6
On 06/19/2013 10:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 09:35:37AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:50:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >This is my patch queue for 3.11 as it stands right now.
>Getting all of this in for 3.11 does not strike me as being realistic.  You
>need to think about how this can be split up.  I see that you have rebased
>Jeff's log size validation patch set after your rearrangement.  I'd rather
>you'd taken Jeff's series first and then made your changes.  Now we can't pull
>in Jeff's work without pulling in a bunch of rearrangement that hasn't been
>fully discussed.  You have also crowded out Chandra's quota work.  We had an
>agreement with him to go for 3.11 with that work which you have broken.
I think 3.11 is a realistic target for all the code movearound, but
maybe not as part of the normal pull request for -rc1.  If we make sure
it's really moving code around and not changing it I think a sending a
second pull request to Linus saying this is just code movearounds we
wanted to do when the churn causes least problems with actual code work
he should be fine with it.

Just to chime in here, we have a lot of resources focused on testing these XFS updates both internally with our QA team and with a range of other RH partners.

I am confident we can shake out any integration concerns in time.



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