linux-kernel - Re: [PULL] bcache: based on for-4.10/block, multiple updates

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: <15228b09-e185-7587-c905-700ca878e80f@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:27:59 -0800
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Eric Wheeler <bcache@...ts.ewheeler.net>
Cc:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kai Krakow <kai@...shome.de>,
        Wido den Hollander <wido@...odh.nl>,
        Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@...ellique.com>,
        Hans van den Bogert <hansbogert@...il.com>,
        "Jens-U. Mozdzen" <jmozdzen@....ag>
Subject: Re: [PULL] bcache: based on for-4.10/block, multiple updates

On 01/31/2017 11:14 AM, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/14/2016 06:50 PM, Eric Wheeler wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> I know you're busy, so when you get a moment:
>>>
>>> I've not yet seen your ack/nack on this yet and I want to make sure it 
>>> gets in before the merge window closes for v4.10.  I rebased it on 
>>> for-4.10/block as you asked so its tested and ready to go as of 12/6 
>>> unless you see something that I've missed.
>>
>> Pulled for 4.10, sorry about the delay.
> 
> Hi Jens,
> 
> Looking at 4.10-rc6, I see these two commits were merged:
> 
>>       bcache: partition support: add 16 minors per bcacheN device
>>       bcache: Make gc wakeup sane, remove set_task_state()
> 
> but these were in the same 'for-4.10-block-bcache-updates' and don't
> appear to have been applied:
> 
>>       bcache: introduce per-process ioprio-based bypass/writeback hints
>>       bcache: documentation for ioprio cache hinting
>>       bcache: update bio->bi_opf bypass/writeback REQ_ flag hints
> 
> Did I miss an email that caused their exclusion?
> 
> Did these get bumped to 4.11 for some reason?

I thought I sent out that reply, maybe I didn't. I dropped the
last three for two reasons:

1) They happened after the merge window, and it's really a feature
   addon that should have gone in earlier

2) There seemed to be confusion and discussion around the interface
   that needed to be resolved first.

Hope that explains it.

-- 
Jens Axboe