From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5][TAKE2] fallocate() implementation on i86, x86_64 and powerpc Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 07:39:32 -0500 Message-ID: <1179664772.30468.3.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> References: <20070418130600.GW5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070420135146.GA21352@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070420145918.GY355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20070424121632.GA10136@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070426175056.GA25321@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070514132926.GA30768@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070514142820.GA31468@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070514144524.GA31748@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070515094436.d441098f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20070515132353.GB12964@amitarora.in.ibm.com> <20070518213621.GA10655@thunk.org> <1179529845.3768.20.camel@dyn9047017103.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Theodore Tso , "Amit K. Arora" , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: cmm@us.ibm.com Return-path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:45597 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754441AbXETMjl (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 08:39:41 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4KCdedT023299 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 08:39:40 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l4KCde1i153166 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 06:39:40 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l4KCddKx024276 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 06:39:40 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1179529845.3768.20.camel@dyn9047017103.beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 16:10 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 17:36 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > We've missed the -rc1 merge window, so the goal should be to make sure > > that everything in the series file before the "unstable patches" is > > ready for merging. > > > I tend to agree. But there are some bug-fix type or mount option > patches that can try to target for rc2, what do you think? I agree with Mingming. There's no reason for these patches not to be in mainline. I am curious why the fallocate patches were put at the top of the series file in the first place. The older patches shouldn't be held up by fallocate (which should wait until the next merge window). Thanks, Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center