I've pushed the non-Ceph bits of the bad-page fix to here:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=fscache
and added a CIFS fix.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
I've pushed the non-Ceph bits of the bad-page fix to here:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=fscache
and added a CIFS fix.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi David!
>
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, David Howells wrote:
> > Sage Weil wrote:
> >
> > > David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do
> > > you have a preference for whose tree they go through?
> >
> > There's only one problem -
Hi David!
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, David Howells wrote:
> Sage Weil wrote:
>
> > David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do
> > you have a preference for whose tree they go through?
>
> There's only one problem - patch 1 needs to come _after_ patch 2 to avoid
>
Sage Weil wrote:
> David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do
> you have a preference for whose tree they go through?
There's only one problem - patch 1 needs to come _after_ patch 2 to avoid
breaking git bisect. Plus these patches 2 and 4 extend the fscache API
Sage Weil s...@inktank.com wrote:
David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do
you have a preference for whose tree they go through?
There's only one problem - patch 1 needs to come _after_ patch 2 to avoid
breaking git bisect. Plus these patches 2 and 4 extend
Hi David!
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, David Howells wrote:
Sage Weil s...@inktank.com wrote:
David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do
you have a preference for whose tree they go through?
There's only one problem - patch 1 needs to come _after_ patch 2 to avoid
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi David!
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, David Howells wrote:
Sage Weil s...@inktank.com wrote:
David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do
you have a preference for whose tree they go through?
There's only one problem -
Sage,
Thanks. If you run into any problems please let me know and I'll
resolve them quick and I'll make sure I'm watching the qa mailing
list.
- Milosz
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi Milosz,
>
> I've pulled this into the ceph testing branch to make sure it holds up
> in
Sage,
Thanks. If you run into any problems please let me know and I'll
resolve them quick and I'll make sure I'm watching the qa mailing
list.
- Milosz
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Sage Weil s...@inktank.com wrote:
Hi Milosz,
I've pulled this into the ceph testing branch to make sure it
Hi Milosz,
I've pulled this into the ceph testing branch to make sure it holds up
in qa.
David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do
you have a preference for whose tree they go through?
Thanks!
sage
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Milosz Tanski wrote:
> This an updated
This an updated version of the fscache support for the Ceph filesystem. What's
changed since the last patchset:
1. Sparater the readpages refactor into it's own patches. These were already
accepted into the testing branch.
2. Tracked down the BUG in readahead cleanup code. We were returning
This an updated version of the fscache support for the Ceph filesystem. What's
changed since the last patchset:
1. Sparater the readpages refactor into it's own patches. These were already
accepted into the testing branch.
2. Tracked down the BUG in readahead cleanup code. We were returning
Hi Milosz,
I've pulled this into the ceph testing branch to make sure it holds up
in qa.
David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do
you have a preference for whose tree they go through?
Thanks!
sage
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Milosz Tanski wrote:
This an updated
14 matches
Mail list logo
