Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Milosz Tanski <milosz@adfin.com>, 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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1309040851080.27503@cobra.newdream.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1309040923080.1073@cobra.newdream.net>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1308212203320.1479@cobra.newdream.net> <cover.1375999914.git.milosz@adfin.com> <17341.1378309753@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1309040851080.27503@cobra.newdream.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi David!
> 
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, David Howells wrote:
> > Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com> 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