linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] ext4: replace ext4_es_insert

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: <58148859-dad6-4a1a-82ef-2a6099e2464d@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 09:32:25 +0800
From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jack@...e.cz,
 yi.zhang@...wei.com, yizhang089@...il.com, libaokun1@...wei.com,
 yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] ext4: replace ext4_es_insert_extent() when
 caching on-disk extents

Hi, Ted!

On 11/29/2025 12:49 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Thanks to Jan and Ojaswin for their comments and reviews on this patch set.
> 
> As you may have noticed this version of the patchset is currently in
> the ext4.git tree, and has shown up in linux-next.

The ext4.git tree[1] shows that only the first three patches from this
v2 version have been merged, possibly because the fourth patch conflicted
with ErKun's patch[2]. I've written a new version locally, adding two fix
patches for the three merged patches, and then rebase the subsequent
patches and modify them directly. I can send them out after texting.
Is this okay?

Thanks,
Yi.

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git/log/?h=dev
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git/commit/?h=dev&id=dac092195b6a35bc7c9f11e2884cfecb1b25e20c

> 
> Given that we have some suggested changes, there are a couple of ways
> we can handle this:
> 
> 1) Zhang Yi could produce a new version of the patch set, and I'll
> replace the v2 version of the patch set currently in the ext4.git tree
> with a newer version.
> 
> 2) We could append fix-up patches to the ext4.git tree to reflect
> those changes.
> 
> 3) I could drop the patch set entirely and we apply a later version
> of the patch series after the merge window.
> 
> What are folks' preferences?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 						- Ted