[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yn7pCEVAq0V4pcp7@sol.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 16:26:00 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] test_dummy_encryption fixes and cleanups
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 03:36:05PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:08:50PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > We can either take all these patches through the fscrypt tree, or we can
> > take them in multiple cycles as follows:
> >
> > 1. patch 1 via ext4, patch 2 via f2fs, patch 3-4 via fscrypt
> > 2. patch 5 via ext4, patch 6 via f2fs
> > 3. patch 7 via fscrypt
> >
> > Ted and Jaegeuk, let me know what you prefer.
>
> In order to avoid patch conflicts with other patch series, what I'd
> prefer is to take them in multiple cycles. I can take patch #1 in my
> initial pull request to Linus, and then do a second pull request to
> Linus with patch #5 post -rc1 or -rc2 (depending on when patches #3
> and #4 hit Linus's tree).
>
> Does that sound good?
That basically sounds fine. I've just sent out v3 of this series, with the fix
for the memory leak in parse_apply_sb_mount_options() as its own patch. That
patch can be applied now too, so you can take patches 1-2 of the v3 series in
your initial pull request.
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists