Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756648AbcJ3OA5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2016 10:00:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:33739 "EHLO mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753055AbcJ3OAz (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2016 10:00:55 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 06:00:50 -0800 From: Kent Overstreet To: Eric Wheeler Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kai Krakow , Wido den Hollander Subject: Re: [PULL] bcache: multiple updates Message-ID: <20161030140050.q6ywphi3by6yoczc@kmo-pixel> References: <5160da7c-e38e-1527-2b09-2ca240df57c3@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1359 Lines: 35 On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 06:32:38PM -0700, Eric Wheeler wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On 10/27/2016 05:27 PM, Eric Wheeler wrote: > > > Hi Jens, > > > > > > Please pull this v4.9-rc2 based series of bcache updates for v4.9-rc3: > > > (You may disregard the previous -rc1-based request.) > > > > > > git pull https://bitbucket.org/ewheelerinc/linux.git > > > v4.9-rc2-bcache-updates > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > -- > > > Eric Wheeler > > > > > > ]# git log --oneline v4.9-rc2..HEAD > > > bd532a6 bcache: partition support: add 16 minors per bcacheN device > > > 3312845 bcache: Make gc wakeup sane, remove set_task_state() > > > 6bb7f1e bcache: update bio->bi_opf bypass/writeback REQ_ flag hints > > > 3d58a09 bcache: documentation for ioprio cache hinting > > > 2e8884b bcache: introduce per-process ioprio-based bypass/writeback hints > > > > How many of these are applicable to 4.9-rc3? I took a quick look at > > them, and some of them look like they should go into the 4.10 branch > > instead. We're after the merge window, so only strict fixes. Cleanups > > and no features, no go. > > 3312845 might need to be in 4.9. Not sure, kent asked me to pick it up in > my next pull request. 4.10 is fine for the rest. > > Kent, Davidlohr, does 3312845 need to land in 4.9 for some reason? No, that can wait until 4.10.