linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v7 00/22] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with errseq

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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>