From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] commit_metadata export operation v6 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:14:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20100223011425.GD17409@fieldses.org> References: <20100217200426.13409.32688.stgit@case> <20100220233804.GA15015@fieldses.org> <20100222195353.GD10942@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, aelder@sgi.com To: bpm@sgi.com Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:41470 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751372Ab0BWBNc (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:13:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100222195353.GD10942@sgi.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:53:53PM -0600, bpm@sgi.com wrote: > Hey Bruce, > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 06:38:04PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:05:05PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > Hey Bruce, > > > > > > Here is the latest version of the knfsd sync changes. I have addressed the > > > suggestions provided by Christoph, Trond, Dave, and Alex. > > > > > > In this latest version I have fixed up the few nits in the nfsd patch that > > > Christoph pointed out yesterday. I also have simplified the xfs patch as > > > suggested by Dave. > > > > Thanks, applying. > > > > (Do you the second (xfs) patch to go in through the nfsd tree as well, > > or should that go in through xfs maintainers after the nfsd merge?) > > I chatted with Alex. It sounds like the best thing is for both patches > to go in through the nfsd tree since they need to go in order. OK, thanks, committed.--b.