[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55a2d67f-9a12-9fe6-d73b-8c3f5eb36f31@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 18:18:53 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New topic branch for block + gup work?
On 9/5/22 5:16 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> After you suggested a topic branch [1] as a way to address the recent
> bio_map_user_iov() conflict in linux-next, I've reviewed a few more
> patchsets in mm, and am now starting to suspect that a topic branch
> would be ideal here.
>
> Logan's "Userspace P2PDMA with O_DIRECT NVMe devices" series [2], my
> "convert most filesystems to pin_user_pages_fast()" series [3], and the
> block layer change from [1], all conflict in iov_iter*, and in
> bio_map_user_iov().
>
> Less of an issue but still worth considering, Dan's "Fix the DAX-gup
> mistake" series [4] conflicts in gup.c, too.
>
> Maybe:
>
> gup_bio
>
> , or something like that, as a topic branch?
>
> Everyone: thoughts, preferences here?
My suggestion would be to branch from for-6.1/block, then we can
apply the gup patches on top of that. I'd probably just call it
for-6.1/block-gup.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists