From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/5] ceph: persistent caching with fscache Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:49:13 +0100 Message-ID: <17341.1378309753@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sage Weil Cc: dhowells-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Milosz Tanski , ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, zheng.z.yan-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-cachefs-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org Sage Weil wrote: > David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do > you have a preference for whose tree they go through? There's only one problem - patch 1 needs to come _after_ patch 2 to avoid breaking git bisect. Plus these patches 2 and 4 extend the fscache API without adjusting the documentation - but that can be added later. And I think Milosz deserves a beer (or other poison of his choice;-) for finding a longstanding irritating bug. I think AFS, CIFS, NFS and 9P all need patching too, but I can attend to that. Should I take the patches through my tree? Then I can make the adjustments. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html