[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9534.1157116114@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:08:34 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
steved@...hat.com, trond.myklebust@....uio.no,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Permit filesystem local caching and NFS superblock sharing [try #13]
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
> Your CONFIG_BLOCK patches did a decent job of trashing your
> fs-cache-make-kafs-* patches, btw. What's up with that? OK, it's sensible
> for people to work against mainline but the net effect of doing that is to
> create a mess for other people to clean up.
It seems the only problem in my patches is that the file address space
operations have had the sync_pages op removed in a patch in the
disable-block-layer patchset as it's no longer necessary.
However, as I suspect you're applying the block patches *before* the FS-Cache
patches, I can't give you an incremental patch that you can apply after the
other fs-cache-make-kafs-* patches, since you need to modify the first patch
(fs-cache-make-kafs-use-fs-cache.patch) to get it to apply at all now.
So, I could issue a revised AFS+FS-Cache patch, would that do? Or would you
rather have a patch that you can apply to the one you already have directly
and modify it in place?
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists