[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180622130600.GY30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:06:01 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the vfs tree
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:45:23PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > Thomas and David, please let me know what I can do from my side to help
> > with this.
>
> You could try basing on Al Viro's for-next tree which has the mount API
> changes in it.
Umm... That would be a massive headache for everyone involved; the changes
in there have very little in common with what you are doing in rdt_mount(),
so it might make sense to start with a minimal never-rebased branch that
would
* define rdt_pseudo_lock_init as 0
* define rdt_pseudo_lock_release as empty
* do the rdt_mount() part of a3dbd01e6c9d
* have commit message along the lines of
"hooks in rdt_mount() for rdt_pseudo_lock to use
Functionally a no-op right now; the only reason for having that
as a never-rebased branch to get rdt_pseudo_lock and mount series
out of each other's hair"
Base that on -rc1, then pull it into your rdt branch and David could pull the
same into his.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists