Am 17.07.2013 um 17:12 schrieb Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com>:
> 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 Yes, you did. Sorry i Misses them in V3