From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs_export_operations.commit_metadata Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:03:59 -0500 Message-ID: <20100212200359.GA23361@fieldses.org> References: <20100211220454.26466.37578.stgit@case> <20100211220505.26466.99037.stgit@case> <1265986006.3201.112.camel@doink1> <20100212174706.GB22633@infradead.org> <20100212195647.GQ23654@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Alex Elder , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: bpm@sgi.com Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:50368 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755971Ab0BLUD3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:03:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100212195647.GQ23654@sgi.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 01:56:47PM -0600, bpm@sgi.com wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:47:07PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > if we care enough about the returned error. But Ben is working against > > the NFS tree which doesn't have that change yet. > > > > We can deal with that by either commiting the old variant to the nfs > > tree and then leaving sending Stephen a patch to fix it up in -next, > > or just not apply the xfs commit_metadata implementation yet, and wait > > for it until both the xfs and nfs trees have hit mainline. Assuming the xfs tree's something stable, I could also just go ahead and pull it into the nfsd tree. (Or we could do it the other way around--as long as when the merge window opens we try to send the pull requests in the same order.) --b.