xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: linux-3.12 userspace

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: linux-3.12 userspace
From: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:55:03 -0500
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <526A87F4.2020207@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <526A6FF9.8000506@xxxxxxx> <526A87F4.2020207@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
On 10/25/2013 10:02 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/25/13 8:19 AM, Rich Johnston wrote:
Hey Folks,

Dave Chinner has a 32 part userspace patchset that needs to be reviewed
and will be committed to coincide with the linux-3.12 kernel release.
I was referring to userspace ( hence the subject ;) ) matching kernel.

Are there other userspace patches that support 3.12 kernel features that
need to be worked?

All other patches on the list will be held back until the linux-3.13
merge window has opened.

Are you talking about holding back kernelspace or userspace patches?
Only userspace.

We'd want to get kernelspace merged in the xfs git tree well before
the merge window,
Yup Ben is working on it.
and I don't think the kernel merge window needs to
affect userspace merges.
Umm yes I need to wait until the kernel supports the feature before adding it to userspace. AFAIR the goal was to have userspace features match the kernelspace.

Can you talk in more specifics (which series/patches, for what codebase)
you're proposing?
Yes I was referring to "[PATCH 00/32] xfsprogs: V5 write support for xfs_db"
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-09/msg00805.html
Which needs to be reviewed before I can pull it in.

I was asking for any other userspace patches that need to be pulled in for the next userspace release so it matches kernel 3.12.

In general I think we simply have a review bottleneck, but once patchsets
are reviewed, in general, they should just get merged, especially in userspace,
IMHO.

No I was chastised for pulling in reviewed userspace patches too early.
Kernel code was not fully hashed out.
But maybe I just need more details.  :)
Am I still missing details?

-Eric


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