[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200529145013.GA22698@xiangao.remote.csb>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 22:50:13 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...hat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>,
Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the erofs tree
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 03:36:13PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:40:07AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>
> > I'm fine with that, although I think it's mainly with vfs changes
> > so could be better though with vfs tree. I will add this patch
> > tomorrow anyway... Thanks for reminder!
>
> FWIW, my reasoning here is
> * erofs tree exists and
> * the patch is erofs-specific, affects nothing outside and
> has no dependencies with anything currently done in VFS or in other
> filesystems and
> * it does have (trivial) conflicts with the stuff in
> erofs tree
>
> So putting it into erofs tree would seem to be an obvious approach -
> minimizes the amount of cross-tree dependencies and headache for
> everyone involved...
That is reasonable. btw, our initial thought was that relates to new
mount apis and we weren't very confident if it really went the
filesystem itself...
>
> I'm dropping it from #work.misc and #for-next now.
I will push out for next cycle. Thanks for detailed explanation.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists