[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 23/41] dm: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support for bio-based dm
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka redhat com>
- Cc: jack suse cz, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, mst redhat com, linux-ide vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, James Bottomley suse de, konishi ryusuke lab ntt co jp, hch lst de, agk redhat com, k-ueda ct jp nec com, vst vlnb net, linux-scsi vger kernel org, rusty rustcorp com au, linux-raid vger kernel org, swhiteho redhat com, chris mason oracle com, tytso mit edu, jaxboe fusionio com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, rwheeler redhat com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 23/41] dm: implement REQ_FLUSH/FUA support for bio-based dm
- Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:36:21 +0200
On 09/10/2010 10:06 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> But I have my work rules that I learned: I use no git kernels and no
> external patches (except Alasdair's patchset that I want to test). I only
> use -rc or final kernels. I need a stable computer --- I don't want to
> solve problems like "does it crash because I pulled something or does it
> crash because I made a bug in my code?" So, put that into 2.6.37-rc1 and
> I'll optimize flushes in dm for -rc2 or -rc3.
Alright, I'm sorry but this is as far as I would go for dm conversion
patches. If you wanna split it further or do it your way, please feel
free to. I think it would be beneficial to do things now but, hey,
you guys are maintaining dm part of the kernel, so it's up to you
guys. But, I think it would be silly for everyone else to wait for
the rather special requirement for dm, so if we have to go forward
without dm updates, I suppose we will have to. Jens, please feel free
to drop dm conversion patches.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]