linux-kernel - Re: New topic branch for block + gup work?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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