On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:38:26PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:

On 11/29/2017 12:05 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:03:30AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:

quoted

Hello,

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 05:56:08PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

What has happened with this patch set?

No idea.  cc'ing Chris directly.  Chris, if the patchset looks good,
can you please route them through the btrfs tree?

lol looking at the patchset again, I'm not sure that's obviously the
right tree.  It can either be cgroup, block or btrfs.  If no one
objects, I'll just route them through cgroup.

We'll have to coordinate a bit during the next merge window but I don't 
have a problem with these going in through cgroup.  Dave does this sound 
good to you?

There are only minor changes to btrfs code so cgroup tree would be
better.

I'd like to include my patch to do all crcs inline (instead of handing 
off to helper threads) when io controls are in place.  By the merge 
window we should have some good data on how much it's all helping.

Are there any problems in sight if the inline crc and cgroup chnanges go
separately? I assume there's a runtime dependency, not a code
dependency, so it could be sorted by the right merge order.