[pnfs] [PATCH 0/32] block layout patches

[Benny Halevy]

On Mar. 25, 2008, 20:14 +0200, Fredric Isaman <iisaman at citi.umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Dean Hildebrand wrote:
> 
>>
>> Fredric Isaman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Dean Hildebrand wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that there are 3 conversations in this patchset.  Is there 
>>>> any way you could re-organize these patches in 3 patchsets? 
>>>> nfs/pnfs/pnfsblock. The reason I ask is that I like some of the nfs/pnfs 
>>>> changes, and would be willing to put some into the nfs41/pnfs tree, but 
>>>> they are hard to review when intermingled with the pnfsblock patches.  If 
>>>> you want, you could put the reason for the nfs/pnfs changes in the patch 
>>>> header (e.g., block needs this to xxxxxx)
>>>>
>>>> Dean
>>>>
>>> I tried to distinguish them via the prefix of the subject line, so that you 
>>> could ignore anything that starts with "pnfsblock:" if you wanted to only 
>>> look at pnfs changes.  However, I admit they are ordered more for my 
>>> convienence than a reviewers.  Would it suffice to reorder them such that 
>>> all nfs, then pnfs, then pnfsblock were in succession?
>>>
>>>     Fred
>> That would work, but it still kind of seems to me that they are 3 separate 
>> patchsets.  (or maybe 2 patch sets since the block driver is really a 
>> separate entity than the nfs/pnfs/filelayout code) I would like to discuss 
>> changes to nfs / pnfs on their merits, not in the context of block-only 
>> requirements (e.g., this patch allows *any* layout driver to xxxx)
>>
>> Dean
> 
> OK.  I'll break them into 2 patch sets.
> 
>  	Fred

Great. Thanks!
I hope to apply all the pending patches later today or tomorrow after
I finish rebasing the 2.6.24 pnfs branch onto 2.6.25 (quite a few
conflicts with changes at the rpc layer).
I'll then apply the 2.6.24 patches onto the 2.6.24 branch, freeze it,
and rebase them onto the 2.6.25 series which will go live on air :)

Benny

> 
>>>> Fred Isaman wrote:
>>>>> These patches implement block layout (draft 5), and incorporate Benny's
>>>>> comments from the last round.
>>>>>
>>>>> The panlayout error case is broken by patch 5, but is restored via
>>>>> patch 6 and a separate panlayout patch to follow.  If there is some
>>>>> better way to handle this let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Fred
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pNFS mailing list
>>>>> pNFS at linux-nfs.org
>>>>> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnfs
>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> pNFS mailing list
> pNFS at linux-nfs.org
> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnfs