[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070105080820.GA5504@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:38:20 +0530
From: Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-aio@...ck.org,
drepper@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jakub@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 1][PATCH 0/6] Filesystem AIO read/write
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:02:33AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> > > Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
> > > > > Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
> > > > > > and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately the unplugging changes in Jen's block tree have trashed these
> > > > > patches to a degree that I'm not confident in my repair attempts. So I'll
> > > > > drop the fasio patches from -mm.
> > > >
> > > > I took a quick look and the conflicts seem pretty minor to me, the unplugging
> > > > changes mostly touch nearby code.
> > >
> > > Well... the conflicts (both mechanical and conceptual) are such that a
> > > round of retesting is needed.
> > >
> > > > Please let know how you want this fixed up.
> > > >
> > > > >From what I can tell the comments in the unplug patches seem to say that
> > > > it needs more work and testing, so perhaps a separate fixup patch may be
> > > > a better idea rather than make the fsaio patchset dependent on this.
> > >
> > > Patches against next -mm would be appreciated, please. Sorry about that.
> > >
> > > I _assume_ Jens is targetting 2.6.21?
> >
> > When is the next -mm likely to be out ?
> >
> > I was considering regenerating the blk unplug patches against the
> > fsaio changes instead of the other way around, if Jens were willing to
> > accept that. But if the next -mm is just around the corner then its
> > not an issue.
>
> I don't really care much, but I work against mainline and anything but
> occasional one-off generations of a patch against a different base is
> not very likely.
>
> The -mm order should just reflect the merge order of the patches, what
> is the fsaio target?
2.6.21 was what I had in mind, to enable the glibc folks to proceed with
conversion to native AIO.
Regenerating my patches against the unplug stuff is not a problem, I only
worry about being queued up behind something that may take longer to
stabilize and is likely to change ... If that is not the case, I don't
mind.
Regards
Suparna
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux AIO,
> see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@...ck.org">aart@...ck.org</a>
--
Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@...ibm.com)
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India
-
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