xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/60] xfs: patch queue for 3.11
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:33:47 +1000
Cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130619154709.GO20932@xxxxxxx>
References: <1371617468-32559-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130619143537.GN20932@xxxxxxx> <20130619144441.GA14834@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51C1C622.7050704@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130619154709.GO20932@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:54:26AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This isn't about the size of your QA team or the number of other RH partners.
> 
> We had an agreement with Chandra to work toward getting his quota work in 3.11
> and it appears that Dave has crowded him out with a rearrangement of code 
> which
> we had no agreement would go into 3.11.

What I posted is what I'm *proposing* for 3.11. You can't have an
agreement with first having a proposal....

> Further, Dave has taken Jeff's log
> size validation series hostage by rebasing it on top of this rearrangement of
> code.

Ben, I think you're being a little melodramatic here. I asked Jeff
if it was OK to rebase his patchset, and he said that was fine:

http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2013-June/027270.html

You don't have to take my rebase of Jeff's patches - you're welcome
to take them direct from Jeff, but then I'll have to send reviews
asking for changes to problems I found when integrating it so that's
going to delay any integration you can do of that series. Please let
Jeff and myself know what you want to do here...

> If there is a strategic reason that RH needs to have the kernel/libxfs code
> rearranged and separated in 3.11 I would have liked to have heard about it
> before now.  I'm all for getting this work done, but not at the expense of
> crowding out other XFS contributors.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. I had an itch, and I
scratched it. Simple as that. It is only a couple of days work.

If you think it's too much for 3.11, then just say so and leave it
at that. I'll move it to my for-3.12 queue and you won't see it
again until after 3.11-rc1 is released...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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