Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from cobra.newdream.net ([66.33.216.30]:46433 "EHLO cobra.newdream.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762844Ab3IDQZg (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:25:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Sage Weil To: David Howells cc: Milosz Tanski , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, zheng.z.yan@intel.com, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/5] ceph: persistent caching with fscache In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <17341.1378309753@warthog.procyon.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Sage Weil wrote: > Hi David! > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, David Howells wrote: > > Sage Weil wrote: > > > > > David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do > > > you have a preference for whose tree they go through? > > > > There's only one problem - patch 1 needs to come _after_ patch 2 to avoid > > breaking git bisect. Plus these patches 2 and 4 extend the fscache API > > without adjusting the documentation - but that can be added later. > > > > And I think Milosz deserves a beer (or other poison of his choice;-) for > > finding a longstanding irritating bug. > > > > I think AFS, CIFS, NFS and 9P all need patching too, but I can attend to that. > > > > Should I take the patches through my tree? Then I can make the adjustments. > > Sure. Do you want the Ceph patches as well, or just the fscache bits? > I'll repost the latest version, as it's gotten several fixes squashed in. The full series is here: git://github.com/ceph/ceph-client wip-fscache https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client/commits/wip-fscache Thanks! sage