On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:16:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:57:10 +1100 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Namjae Jeon (10):
> > > fs: Add new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallocate
> > > xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate
> > I've pushed these to the following branch:
> > git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs.git xfs-collapse-range
> > And so they'll be in tomorrow's linux-next tree.
> > > ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate
> > I've left this one alone for the ext4 guys to sort out.
> So presumably that xfs tree branch is now completely stable and so Ted
> could just merge that branch into the ext4 tree as well and put the ext4
> part on top of that in his tree.
Well, for some definition of stable. Right now it's just a topic
branch that is merged into the for-next branch, so in theory it is
still just a set of pending changes in a branch in a repo that has
been pushed to linux-next for testing.
That said, I don't see that branch changing unless we find bugs in
the code or a problem with the API needs fixing, at which point I
would add more commits to it and rebase the for-next branch that you
are pulling into the linux-next tree.
Realistically, I'm waiting for Lukas to repost his other pending
fallocate changes (the zero range changes) so I can pull the VFS and
XFS bits of that into the XFS tree and I can test them together
before I'll call the xfs-collapse-range stable and ready to be
merged into some other tree...