On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:02:33AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> > > > Suparna Bhattacharya <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
> > > > > > Suparna Bhattacharya <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
> > > > > > > and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately the unplugging changes in Jen's block tree have trashed these
> > > > > > patches to a degree that I'm not confident in my repair attempts. So I'll
> > > > > > drop the fasio patches from -mm.
> > > > >
> > > > > I took a quick look and the conflicts seem pretty minor to me, the unplugging
> > > > > changes mostly touch nearby code.
> > > >
> > > > Well... the conflicts (both mechanical and conceptual) are such that a
> > > > round of retesting is needed.
> > > >
> > > > > Please let know how you want this fixed up.
> > > > >
> > > > > >From what I can tell the comments in the unplug patches seem to say that
> > > > > it needs more work and testing, so perhaps a separate fixup patch may be
> > > > > a better idea rather than make the fsaio patchset dependent on this.
> > > >
> > > > Patches against next -mm would be appreciated, please. Sorry about that.
> > > >
> > > > I _assume_ Jens is targetting 2.6.21?
> > >
> > > When is the next -mm likely to be out ?
> > >
> > > I was considering regenerating the blk unplug patches against the
> > > fsaio changes instead of the other way around, if Jens were willing to
> > > accept that. But if the next -mm is just around the corner then its
> > > not an issue.
> >
> > I don't really care much, but I work against mainline and anything but
> > occasional one-off generations of a patch against a different base is
> > not very likely.
> >
> > The -mm order should just reflect the merge order of the patches, what
> > is the fsaio target?
>
> 2.6.21 was what I had in mind, to enable the glibc folks to proceed with
> conversion to native AIO.
>
> Regenerating my patches against the unplug stuff is not a problem, I only
> worry about being queued up behind something that may take longer to
> stabilize and is likely to change ... If that is not the case, I don't
> mind.
Same here, hence the suggestion to base then in merging order. If your
target is 2.6.21, then I think fsaio should be first. While I think the
plug changes are safe and as such mergable, we still need to see lots of
results and do more testing.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
