Am 17.07.2013 um 12:28 schrieb Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>: > Il 17/07/2013 12:23, Peter Lieven ha scritto: >> >> Am 16.07.2013 um 13:55 schrieb Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>: >> >>> Il 16/07/2013 13:40, Peter Lieven ha scritto: >>>> >>>> The conflict with your block status patches can't be large. >>>> upstream/master has no >>>> iscsi_co_is_allocated yet, so there should be no trouble. >>> >>> Yes, whoever goes second has to change it to the new get_block_status >>> API. Kevin and Stefan can decide who that lucky guy is. >> >> Wouldn't you be able to merge it into scsi/next ? > > get_block_status is not work for the SCSI tree. If you mean making it > easier for you to rebase on top, the v2 I posted yesterday is in branch > block-flags in my github repo.
That would be ok if the patches are merged first. Otherwise I could ask Kevin to merge my old series (except the iscsi_co_write_zeroes patch as there obviously is still room for discussion and improvement) and you could tweak iscsi_co_is_allocated later? Kevin, shall I prepare something for you to pull? Peter
