On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:57:56PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I've updated the patch and pushed out a new pnfsd-for-3.20-4 branch.
> The changes relative to the old one are below:
Hi Christoph, with these changes I think this is fine to be merged
with the experimental tag attached to it
Acked-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I'm expecting the merge window to open on Monday so it's kinda late
to be adding new stuff to the XFS tree and co-ordinating it with the
NFS tree merge - how were you planning to get this to merged?
I've already merged all but the two pNFSD support patches, so
there's some duplicate commits in your pnfsd-for-3.20-4 branch.
i.e. these commits in your tree:
b8d5187 xfs: factor out a xfs_update_prealloc_flags() helper
6d5ca2a xfs: update the superblock using a synchronous transaction in growfs
e3ea93e xfs: pass a 64-bit count argument to xfs_iomap_write_unwritten
are already merged into the xfs for-next branch as:
8add71c xfs: factor out a xfs_update_prealloc_flags() helper
f8079b8 xfs: growfs should use synchronous transactions
d32057f xfs: pass a 64-bit count argument to xfs_iomap_write_unwritten
A straight merge from your tree ends up with both sets of commits in
the history. So a rebase on your side, or me pulling them into the
XFS tree is probably required to keep the history clean.
I didn't really want to add any more to the XFS tree this close to
the merge window opening, but I've already got a regression fix that
needs to be added, so perhaps I'll delay sending Linus a pull
request for a week and just merge all of these XFS changes directly.
What do you think?