Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:15:08 -0700 Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 08 2013, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Btw, I have to state that I very much disagree with dropping the
> > > direct I/O kernel changes, and I also very much disagree with keeping
> > > the immutable iovecs in.
> > > 
> > > For the latter I think the immutable iovecs are useful and do want to
> > > see them eventually, but they were merged at the latest possible point
> > > in the merge window and cause breakage all over the tree, so they very
> > > clearly are not ready at this point, and I fear even more breakage if
> > > they do get merged.
> > 
> > I agree, I've had this very conversation with Kent as well. The merge of
> > it has gone a lot worse than I had feared, and the resulting series at
> > this point is a non-bisectable mess. The fallback plan was to pull it
> > from the 3.13 tree and shove it into a 3.14 tree with more for-next
> > simmering.
> > 
> > It is in progress, just takes a while...
> 
> And it's done and pushed out. for-3.13/drivers is still missing the
> bcache bits, those will get merged back in once they don't depend on the
> immutable changes anymore.
> 
> Dave, this should make your life easier. And Stephen, if you pull the
> new for-next, it should make yours a lot easier as well.

I have added the aio-driect tree back for today.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature