From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: patch queue updated
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:45:48 +0530
Message-ID: <470CFAB4.8080408@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <470CBFFF.3080308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1192032053.3880.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
To: cmm@us.ibm.com
In-Reply-To: <1192032053.3880.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org


Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 17:35 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> I have updated the patch queue at 
>>
>> http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/patch-series/
>>
>> http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/patch-series/ext4-patch-queue.tar
>>
>> Changes:
>> a) Add large-file-blocktype.patch  large-file.patch patch.
> 
> Could you send them out separately? I noticed that your queue is not
> based on the last ext4 patch queue. You modified mballoc-core.patch
> directly with large file block type changes...but your updated
> mballoc-core.patch doesn't have the latest proc fs fix from Ted. 
> 

It has the changes. http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/patch-series/mballoc-core.patch
I searched for PROC_FS . I did a git pull on patch queue before updating the patches.


> I would appreciate if you separete the largeblocktype changes for
> mballoc out of the core mballoc changes, as that patch is getting really
> big already.
> 
>> b) Add the stable-boundary-patch with dummy change
>> c) Add stable-boundary-undo.patch which undo the above dummy change.
> 
> The stable-boundary patch is being removed from ext4 patch queue,as some
> tools expect a meaning code diff to apply any patch.
> 

That is why i added a dummy change which is reverted by the later patch.


-aneesh