linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Permit filesystem local caching and NFS superblock sharing [try #13]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20060901093451.87aa486d.akpm@osdl.org>
Date:	Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:34:51 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	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]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:08:34 +0100
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> 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,

Yes, I stage the subsystem trees ahead of everything else.  So a) things
which get merged into a subsystem tree effectively do a queue-jump and b) I
spend much of the merge window twiddling thumbs until the git trees have
merged.

> 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?

I fixed it all up, I think.  Please review-and-test rc5-mm1 (including
hot-fixes/ contents, which grows apace).

nfs automounter submounts are still broken in Trond's tree, btw.  Are we stuck?
-
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/