Am 17.07.2013 um 16:53 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > Il 17/07/2013 16:46, Peter Lieven ha scritto: > > > > Am 17.07.2013 um 16:26 schrieb Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>: > > > >> Il 17/07/2013 16:18, Peter Lieven ha scritto: > >>>>>>> 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. > >> > >> Yes, of course! And I think I can merge them via scsi/next, too. What > >> patches are you thinking of exactly? Can you write the numbers? > > > > Mandatory: > > [PATCHv3 07/10] iscsi: fix -ENOSPC in iscsi_create() > > [PATCHv3 08/10] iscsi: factor out sector conversions > > [PATCHv3 09/10] iscsi: remove support for misaligned nb_sectors in aio_readv > > [PATCHv3 10/10] iscsi: assert that sectors are aligned to LUN blocksize > > Applied all to scsi-next (trivial conflict in patches 8 and 10, solved > them myself---just be careful when rebasing). > > > Optional (non-conflicting patches): > > [PATCHv3 01/10] iscsi: add logical block provisioning information to > > iscsilun > > [PATCHv3 05/10] block: add bdrv_write_zeroes() > > [PATCHv3 06/10] block/raw: add bdrv_co_write_zeroes > > 5 and 6 must go through Kevin.
This week is Stefan's. But didn't I give a Reviewed-by for an earlier version of these patches, Peter? It doesn't seem to have made its way to the commit message. Kevin