Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11936 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752228Ab3EFIv1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 04:51:27 -0400 Message-ID: <51876EF1.9080806@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 11:50:57 +0300 From: Ric Wheeler MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Morris CC: Steve Dickson , Trond Myklebust , "J. Bruce Fields" , "David P. Quigley" , Linux NFS list , Linux FS devel list , Linux Security List , SELinux List , Jack Rieden Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] lnfs: linux-3.9 release References: <1367515151-31015-1-git-send-email-SteveD@redhat.com> <51848BE0.2080901@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/06/2013 11:19 AM, James Morris wrote: > On Sat, 4 May 2013, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >> It would be great to see this patch series land in time for 3.10 - seems like >> a major feature that has had been held in development for years and it does >> have a very interested user base waiting for this to land. >> >> Are there any existing roadblocks to having this make it this merge window? > > Not that I'm aware of, but I feel they should all go in via the same tree > (an NFS one), rather than being split across subsystems, which has been > suggested off list. It's better to keep them all in one place where they > can be tested and maintained together. > > > - James Great - are we using Trond's tree and/or Bruce's tree (or both :))? Regards, Ric