Il 17/07/2013 12:40, Peter Lieven ha scritto: > > 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?
I'll look at your old series, I think the conflicts are relatively trivial. But I think that this series must wait for 1.7. Paolo
