lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1497953761.4555.1.camel@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 06:16:01 -0400 From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, tytso@....edu, axboe@...nel.dk, mawilcox@...rosoft.com, ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, corbet@....net, Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>, Eryu Guan <eguan@...hat.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/22] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with errseq_t (pile #1) On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 09:25 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:23:46 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > If there are no major objections to this set, I'd like to have > > linux-next start picking it up to get some wider testing. What's the > > right vehicle for this, given that it touches stuff all over the tree? > > > > I can see 3 potential options: > > > > 1) I could just pull these into the branch that Stephen is already > > picking up for file-locks in my tree > > > > 2) I could put them into a new branch, and have Stephen pull that one in > > addition to the file-locks branch > > > > 3) It could go in via someone else's tree entirely (Andrew or Al's > > maybe?) > > > > I'm fine with any of these. Anyone have thoughts? > > Given that this is a one off development, either 1 or 3 (in Al's tree) > would be fine. 2 is a possibility (but people forget to ask me to > remove one shot trees :-() > Ok -- yeah, I'd probably be one of those people who forget too... In that case, I'll plan to go ahead and just merge these into my linux-next branch. That's easier than bugging others for it. Hopefully we won't have a lot in the way of merge conflicts. I'll see about getting this into branch later today, and hopefully we can get it into linux-next for tomorrow. Thanks! -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists