Re: [RFC v4 linux-next 00/19] fs & block: remove bdev->bd_inode

[Matthew Sakai <msakai@redhat.com>]

On 3/18/24 21:43, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 在 2024/03/19 9:18, Yu Kuai 写道:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 在 2024/03/18 17:39, Christian Brauner 写道:
>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:49:33AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>>> Hi, Christian
>>>>
>>>> 在 2024/03/15 21:54, Christian Brauner 写道:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 08:08:49PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, Christian
>>>>>> Hi, Christoph
>>>>>> Hi, Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps now is a good time to send a formal version of this set.
>>>>>> However, I'm not sure yet what branch should I rebase and send 
>>>>>> this set.
>>>>>> Should I send to the vfs tree?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly all of it is in fs/ so I'd say yes.
>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> I see that you just create a new branch vfs.fixes, perhaps can I rebase
>>>> this set against this branch?
>>>
>>> Please base it on vfs.super. I'll rebase it to v6.9-rc1 on Sunday.
>>
>> Okay, I just see that vfs.super doesn't contain commit
>> 1cdeac6da33f("btrfs: pass btrfs_device to btrfs_scratch_superblocks()"),
>> and you might need to fix the conflict at some point.
> 
> And there is another problem, dm-vdo doesn't exist in vfs.super yet. Do
> you still want me to rebase here?
> 

The dm-vdo changes don't appear to rely on earlier patches in the 
series, so I think dm-vdo could incorporate the dm-vdo patch 
independently from the rest of the series, if that would be helpful. (I 
don't want to confuse things too much.) In that case it would go through 
the dm tree with the rest of dm-vdo.

Matt