[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230424-unser-erden-693a29d7a388@brauner>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:10:25 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Mark Fasheh <mark@...heh.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
ocfs2-devel <ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: reduce ioctl stack usage
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 09:48:01PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 02:56:38PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 05:37:06PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
> > > Andrew picked ocfs2 patches into -mm tree before.
> >
> > Yup and that's fine obviously, but this belongs to fs/ and we're aiming
> > to take fs/ stuff through the dedicated fs trees going forward.
>
> Er... Assuming that there *is* an active fs tree for filesystem
> in question. Do you really want dedicated e.g. affs, adfs, etc.
> git trees - one for each filesystem in there?
No, that's not meant or want. What I meant is that when a filesystem
doesn't have a dedicated tree (and/or active maintainers) mentioned in
the maintainer's file then we pick up those patches just like we already
do today and have done.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists