Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 09:32:44 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-aio@kvack.org, drepper@redhat.com,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       jakub@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 1][PATCH 0/6] Filesystem AIO read/write
Message-ID: <20070105083244.GS11203@kernel.dk>
References: <20061227153855.GA25898@in.ibm.com> <20061228082308.GA4476@in.ibm.com> <20070103141556.82db0e81.akpm@osdl.org> <20070104045621.GA8353@in.ibm.com> <20070104090242.44dd8165.akpm@osdl.org> <20070105062841.GA2653@in.ibm.com> <20070105070230.GJ11203@kernel.dk> <20070105080820.GA5504@in.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070105080820.GA5504@in.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3059
Lines: 69

On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> 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@in.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@in.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.

Same here, hence the suggestion to base then in merging order. If your
target is 2.6.21, then I think fsaio should be first. While I think the
plug changes are safe and as such mergable, we still need to see lots of
results and do more testing.

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/