Date:   Sat, 18 Feb 2023 16:48:46 +0900
From:   asmadeus@codewreck.org
To:     Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
Cc:     v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, rminnich@gmail.com,
        lucho@ionkov.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux_oss@crudebyte.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] Performance fixes for 9p filesystem
Message-ID: <Y/CC3qyBFSFVI/S0@codewreck.org>
References: <20230124023834.106339-1-ericvh@kernel.org>
 <20230218003323.2322580-1-ericvh@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230218003323.2322580-1-ericvh@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

Eric Van Hensbergen wrote on Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 12:33:12AM +0000:
> I'm gonna definitely submit the first couple patches as they are
> fairly harmless - but would like to submit the whole series to the
> upcoming merge window.

Could you take the three patches I have in my 9p-next branch:
https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-next

If you're going to submit some?
The async stuff still isn't good, but there three patches have had
reviews and should be good to go.

(I guess we can just send Linus two pull requests for 9p, but it doesn't
really make sense given the low number of patches)

> Would appreciate reviews.

Just one first review on the form: let's start a new thread for every
new revision of the patchset.

I also used to relink from the pervious cover letter and thought that
made more sense at the time, but I was told to split threads a while ago
and now I'm trying some new tools based on lkml.kernel.org's public
inbox thread view I can agree it's much simpler to grab a batch of patch
if older versions aren't mixed in the thread.
(For the curious, I'm just grabbing the thread to review on an e-ink
reader for my eyes, but there's also b4 that I've been meaning to try at
some point -- https://b4.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/ -- that will likely
work the same)

Anyway, off to look at patches a bit.

-- 
Dominiquee