From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932186AbeE3ThE (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2018 15:37:04 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com ([209.85.223.194]:44392 "EHLO mail-io0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753666AbeE3ThC (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2018 15:37:02 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJb4cs1/q1aftl/OgFwHaR/m58ynJnHUnWJJmdmlFxWU1qY/ReJ65FP6D5d/SL9bprdzLTRhA== Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] convert block layer to bioset_init()/mempool_init() To: Kent Overstreet Cc: Mike Snitzer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, colyli@suse.de, darrick.wong@oracle.com, clm@fb.com, bacik@fb.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.com References: <20180521144703.GA19303@redhat.com> <4b343aef-e11c-73ba-1d88-7e73ca838cad@kernel.dk> <20180521150439.GA19379@redhat.com> <61e30dcf-a01c-f47d-087a-12930caf9aef@kernel.dk> <20180521151817.GA19454@redhat.com> <20180521160907.GA19553@redhat.com> <20180530133629.GC5157@redhat.com> <20180530193435.GC3487@kmo-pixel> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 13:36:58 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180530193435.GC3487@kmo-pixel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/30/18 1:34 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:55:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/30/18 7:36 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: >>> So revisiting this patchset: are you inclined to take these changes (I >>> assume yes)? If so, what would you need in order to get them staged for >>> 4.18? I'll start with offering my review in reply to the DM patch. I'd >>> much prefer to see this level of change go in sooner rather than later. >> >> Yeah I'd like to take the changes, but we might have to wait for >> 4.19 at this point. It'd certainly help to have the dm bits reviewed, >> as they are some of the larger ones. The grunt of the others are mostly >> trivial and smaller in scope. > > I don't have a strong opinion on 4.18 vs. 4.19, but I'm available to do whatever > fixups are needed if it'll help get them in faster. Let's do 4.18, I'm getting ready to queue it up. Pinged a few btrfs folks to get that part reviewed. Note that I'll add a one liner description in the commit message for the patches, as suggested by Mike. They are pretty barren, a little meat in the body won't hurt. -- Jens Axboe