Hi Linus,
The following changes since commit 219d54332a09e8d8741c1e1982f5eae56099de85:
Linux 5.4 (2019-11-24 16:32:01 -0800)
are available in the Git repository at:
https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client.git tags/ceph-for-5.5-rc1
for you to fetch changes up to 82995cc6c5ae4bf4d72edef381a085e52d5b5905:
libceph, rbd, ceph: convert to use the new mount API (2019-11-27 22:28:37 +0100)
----------------------------------------------------------------
The two highlights are a set of improvements to how rbd read-only
mappings are handled and a conversion to the new mount API (slightly
complicated by the fact that we had a common option parsing framework
that called out into rbd and the filesystem instead of them calling
into it). Also included a few scattered fixes and a MAINTAINERS update
for rbd, adding Dongsheng as a reviewer.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Ian King (1):
rbd: fix spelling mistake "requeueing" -> "requeuing"
David Howells (1):
libceph, rbd, ceph: convert to use the new mount API
Ilya Dryomov (11):
libceph: drop unnecessary check from dispatch() in mon_client.c
rbd: update MAINTAINERS info
rbd: introduce rbd_is_snap()
rbd: introduce RBD_DEV_FLAG_READONLY
rbd: treat images mapped read-only seriously
rbd: disallow read-write partitions on images mapped read-only
rbd: don't acquire exclusive lock for read-only mappings
rbd: don't establish watch for read-only mappings
rbd: remove snapshot existence validation code
rbd: don't query snapshot features
rbd: ask for a weaker incompat mask for read-only mappings
Jeff Layton (3):
ceph: make several helper accessors take const pointers
ceph: tone down loglevel on ceph_mdsc_build_path warning
ceph: don't leave ino field in ceph_mds_request_head uninitialized
Xiubo Li (1):
ceph: fix geting random mds from mdsmap
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
drivers/block/rbd.c | 467 ++++++++++++++++---------------
fs/ceph/cache.c | 9 +-
fs/ceph/cache.h | 5 +-
fs/ceph/mds_client.c | 19 +-
fs/ceph/mdsmap.c | 11 +-
fs/ceph/super.c | 646 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
fs/ceph/super.h | 13 +-
include/linux/ceph/libceph.h | 10 +-
net/ceph/ceph_common.c | 419 +++++++++++++---------------
net/ceph/messenger.c | 2 -
net/ceph/mon_client.c | 3 -
12 files changed, 803 insertions(+), 803 deletions(-)
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:02 PM Ilya Dryomov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Colin Ian King (1):
> rbd: fix spelling mistake "requeueing" -> "requeuing"
Hmm. Why? That's not a spelling mistake, it's the same word.
Arguably "requeue" isn't much of a real word to begin with, and is
more of a made-up tech language. And then on wiktionary apparently the
only "ing" form you find is the one without the final "e", but
honestly, that's reaching. The word doesn't exist in _real_
dictionaries at all.
I suspect "re-queueing" with the explicit hyphen would be the more
legible spelling (with or without the "e" - both forms are as
correct), but whatever.
I've pulled it, but I really don't think it was misspelled to begin
with, and somebody who actually cares about language probably wouldn't
like either form.
Linus
The pull request you sent on Wed, 4 Dec 2019 21:03:07 +0100:
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client.git tags/ceph-for-5.5-rc1
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/a231582359ec27e121bf4bb0ab3df8355f919d1d
Thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.wiki.kernel.org/userdoc/prtracker
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:19 PM Linus Torvalds
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:02 PM Ilya Dryomov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Colin Ian King (1):
> > rbd: fix spelling mistake "requeueing" -> "requeuing"
>
> Hmm. Why? That's not a spelling mistake, it's the same word.
>
> Arguably "requeue" isn't much of a real word to begin with, and is
> more of a made-up tech language. And then on wiktionary apparently the
> only "ing" form you find is the one without the final "e", but
> honestly, that's reaching. The word doesn't exist in _real_
> dictionaries at all.
>
> I suspect "re-queueing" with the explicit hyphen would be the more
> legible spelling (with or without the "e" - both forms are as
> correct), but whatever.
>
> I've pulled it, but I really don't think it was misspelled to begin
> with, and somebody who actually cares about language probably wouldn't
> like either form.
FWIW that was my spelling. I suspected the same thing, saw it being
used in various spellings, but since Colin is a native speaker I took
the patch.
Thanks,
Ilya