From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750709AbWFTMsH (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750710AbWFTMsH (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:07 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:7363 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750709AbWFTMsG (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:06 -0400 Subject: Re: GFS2 and DLM From: Steven Whitehouse To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Linus Torvalds , David Teigland , Patrick Caulfield , Kevin Anderson , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060620123342.GA26579@infradead.org> References: <1150805833.3856.1356.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> <20060620123342.GA26579@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat (UK) Ltd Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:55:06 +0100 Message-Id: <1150808106.3856.1380.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 13:33 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 01:17:13PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Linus, Andrew suggested to me to send this pull request to you directly. > > Please consider merging the GFS2 filesystem and DLM from (they are both > > in the same tree for ease of testing): > > Did anyone actually bother to review it? It's huge and was in pretty > bad shapre when I looked last time. Also in the -mm merge writeup > you guys said it's only scheduled for 2.6.19 so I didn't even bother > looking at the huge mess. > Well we have received a few comments from various people, so I would say that it has been reviewed. You appeared to be happy with the iflags.h header file which was the last set of comments that I have from you I think. I'm sorry if we've missed something along the way but I hope we've been quite careful to address all the issues. My comments regarding 2.6.19 were due to one particular aspect of the unlink() call which wasn't quite right. I didn't think at the time I wrote that message that we'd be ready for this merge window, however since Linus then went through a final -rc release, there was in fact time to deal with this. I did post a follow up to clarify that a little while back, so I'm sorry if it was a bit confusing, Steve.