[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230822-turnus-quert-9b11d4e30dc9@brauner>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:46:38 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the
djw-vfs tree
> Christian: I've been planning to merge the {freeze,thaw}_super @who
> changes for 6.6; do you think more 'cooperating with the maintainer' is
> needed, or shall I simply push my branch to Linus with a note that
> s/down_write/super_lock_excl/ s/up_write/super_unlock_excl is needed to
> resolve the merge the conflict?
Hm, that's not a pleasant merge conflict given that it's locking
changes. It would probably be fine to just bring it up the way it is but
it looks needlessly messy/uncoordinated. I'm wonder why this isn't just
all in vfs.super since it's core vfs infra change anyway. Maybe I just
missed the patches if so then sorry about that.
That's the two infrastructure patches in the kernel-fsfreeze
branch/kernel-fsfreeze_2023-07-27 tag?:
ad0164493b81 ("fs: distinguish between user initiated freeze and kernel initiated freeze")
53f65fd7a3d5 ("fs: wait for partially frozen filesystemskernel-fsfreeze_2023-07-27kernel-fsfreeze")
If you give me a tag with your description and just the two commits or I
just cherry pick them and cite your description in my pr that would be
my preferred solution. How do you feel about that?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists