linux-kernel - Re: iomap-folio & nvdimm merge

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 21 Dec 2021 18:53:25 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: iomap-folio & nvdimm merge

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:41:15AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >     iomap: Inline __iomap_zero_iter into its caller
> > 
> >     To make the merge easier, replicate the inlining of __iomap_zero_iter()
> >     into iomap_zero_iter() that is currently in the nvdimm tree.
> > 
> >     Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
> 
> Looks like a reasonable function promotion to me...
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org>

Thanks, applied that to the commit.

> > Shall I push out a version of this patch series which includes the
> > "iomap: Inline __iomap_zero_iter into its caller" patch I pasted above?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I've been distracted for months with first a Huge Customer Escalation
> and now a <embargoed>, which means that I've been and continue to be
> very distracted.  I /think/ there are no other iomap patches being
> proposed for inclusion -- Andreas' patches were applied as fixes during
> 5.16-rc, Christoph's DAX refactoring is now in the nvdimm tree, and that
> leaves Matthew's folios refactoring.
> 
> So seeing as (I think?) there are no other iomap patches for 5.17, if
> Matthew wants to add his branch to for-next and push directly to Linus
> (rather than pushing to me to push the exact same branch to Linus) I
> think that would be ... better than letting it block on me.  IIRC I've
> RVB'd everything in the folios branch. :(
> 
> FWIW I ran the 5.17e branch through my fstests cloud and nothing fell
> out, so I think it's in good enough shape to merge to for-next.

Glad to hear it passed that thorough testing.  Stephen, please pick
up a new tree (hopefully just temporarily until Darrick can swim to
the surface):

 git://git.infradead.org/users/willy/linux.git folio-iomap

Hopefully the previous message will give you enough context for
the merge conflict resolution.