Am 17.07.2013 um 12:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>:
> 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. Would it be an Option to merge it except for the iscsi_co_is_allocated and the iscsi_co_write_zeroes patch. 3 of the Patches fix potential bugs. Peter > > Paolo >