On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:38:26PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > On 11/29/2017 12:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:03:30AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 05:56:08PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > >>> What has happened with this patch set? > >> > >> No idea. cc'ing Chris directly. Chris, if the patchset looks good, > >> can you please route them through the btrfs tree? > > > > lol looking at the patchset again, I'm not sure that's obviously the > > right tree. It can either be cgroup, block or btrfs. If no one > > objects, I'll just route them through cgroup. > > We'll have to coordinate a bit during the next merge window but I don't > have a problem with these going in through cgroup. Dave does this sound > good to you?
There are only minor changes to btrfs code so cgroup tree would be better. > I'd like to include my patch to do all crcs inline (instead of handing > off to helper threads) when io controls are in place. By the merge > window we should have some good data on how much it's all helping. Are there any problems in sight if the inline crc and cgroup chnanges go separately? I assume there's a runtime dependency, not a code dependency, so it could be sorted by the right merge order. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
