Return-Path: <linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:55286 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752554Ab1ISCGl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:06:41 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:06:40 -0700
Message-ID: <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430B35602C@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-reply-to: <20110919020431.GA18269@merit.edu>
References: <1315945452-1575-1-git-send-email-rees@umich.edu> <4E707FC1.2020607@tonian.com> <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430B356025@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <20110919020431.GA18269@merit.edu>
From: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
To: "Jim Rees" <rees@umich.edu>
Cc: "Benny Halevy" <bhalevy@tonian.com>, "Peng Tao" <bergwolf@gmail.com>,
        <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>, "peter honeyman" <honey@citi.umich.edu>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Rees [mailto:rees@umich.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 10:05 PM
> To: Myklebust, Trond
> Cc: Benny Halevy; Peng Tao; linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; peter honeyman
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put
> 
> Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> 
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Benny Halevy [mailto:bhalevy@tonian.com]
>   > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:20 AM
>   > To: Jim Rees; Peng Tao; Myklebust, Trond
>   > Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; peter honeyman
>   > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and
path_put
>   >
>   > We need to decide on a process here :)
>   > If we would like to maintain a staging tree in front of Trond's
then
>   to simplify
>   > merging and rebasing, fixes to code that's already upstream, i.e.
in
>   linux-2.6
>   > or already queued in nfs-2.6, that we decide to send to Trond
ahead of
>   > queue need to be queued in front of stuff in the staging tree and
the
>   latter
>   > should be rebased on top of them.
> 
>   Unless we're talking about a large merge, I tend to prefer patches.
They
>   are much easier to review...
> 
> I guess the problem is that we now have a patch in Trond's tree that
conflicts
> with the workqueue patch that's staged for later in Benny's tree.
> I think what I need to do is send Benny a set of patches that starts
with the
> same patch I sent Trond, and follows with one that adds the workqueue.

Yes. That's the other good feature of patches: the onus of fixing up
conflicts is on you and not on me... :-)

Trond