linux-kernel - Re: upcoming merge window: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

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]

Message-ID: <20231024154620.GQ26353@twin.jikos.cz>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 17:46:20 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        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>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: upcoming merge window: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the
 vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:59:39AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:25:43AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:55:13 +0200 David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have updated my for-next branch again, sorry (top commit 1a4dc97c883a4f763cbaf50).
> > > There are some fixes I don't want to miss from the 6.7 pull request.
> > > There should be minimal change to the VFS tree conflict resolution so
> > > the diff should be reusable.
> > 
> > So, why did you not just merge in v6.6-rc7 (or better yet, the branch
> > that contains the fix(es) that Linus merged) and then apply your new
> > commits on top of that?  All the commits that were in the btrfs tree
> > have been rebased unchanged.
> 
> Please reconsider that and follow Stephen's suggestion. I'm sending pull
> requests this week and it'd be really annoying having to rebase
> vfs.super right before sending them.
> 
> We let you carry the required patches in btrfs on your insistence even
> though this effectively blocked two patchsets for a whole cycle

I hope I explained my reasons already under that series, core btrfs
changes should not go via VFS tree.

> and then
> merged in btrfs into vfs.super for that. Rebasing on such short notice
> is really not very nice.

Like said in the my other reply, the amount of VFS changes asks for
stopping taking new patches to btrfs and not continuing the patch
workflow that I've been doing. I understand that the inter-tree
dependencies are never easy so it's about finding some common way and
splitting the work over more releases eventually.

A resync of our branches a week before merge window, when there are no
significant changes on my side does not sound like too short notice, but
you can feel otherwise of course.

> I'm going to wait with the rebase for a bit.

Ok, don't rebase. I'll push to linux-next the previous snapshot and will
find a way how to deliver the new patches.