From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751180AbWIANIr (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:08:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751113AbWIANIr (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:08:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:48302 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750967AbWIANIq (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:08:46 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20060831102127.8fb9a24b.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060831102127.8fb9a24b.akpm@osdl.org> <20060830135503.98f57ff3.akpm@osdl.org> <20060830125239.6504d71a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060830193153.12446.24095.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <27414.1156970238@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <9849.1157018310@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> To: Andrew Morton Cc: David Howells , torvalds@osdl.org, steved@redhat.com, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Permit filesystem local caching and NFS superblock sharing [try #13] X-Mailer: MH-E 8.0; nmh 1.1; GNU Emacs 22.0.50 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:08:34 +0100 Message-ID: <9534.1157116114@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Your CONFIG_BLOCK patches did a decent job of trashing your > fs-cache-make-kafs-* patches, btw. What's up with that? OK, it's sensible > for people to work against mainline but the net effect of doing that is to > create a mess for other people to clean up. It seems the only problem in my patches is that the file address space operations have had the sync_pages op removed in a patch in the disable-block-layer patchset as it's no longer necessary. However, as I suspect you're applying the block patches *before* the FS-Cache patches, I can't give you an incremental patch that you can apply after the other fs-cache-make-kafs-* patches, since you need to modify the first patch (fs-cache-make-kafs-use-fs-cache.patch) to get it to apply at all now. So, I could issue a revised AFS+FS-Cache patch, would that do? Or would you rather have a patch that you can apply to the one you already have directly and modify it in place? David