From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBEF93FCF for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 13:51:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1631800279; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4lVrPdsoP5O/cM/OSAIFtewkyqRFucE9aREXO9piQ+4=; b=GJEY+q7ZHlx70i89tL9FqRWIO7VE4749Mec3cEBQmQXaRsVIaIM3fHg3E7+MCTDQbenCPp 5ehJjO/mBSH8Pckq19fMALs+oQGYKULv/DV/5NG9XZbUiKdpUFXDmxQZTYg9D56OU2f8PZ nx+QizACcsaQoiM1WiH3Bk03rogGy18= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-416-wINEPB07OC23uIxFVwSC_g-1; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:51:18 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wINEPB07OC23uIxFVwSC_g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88A48100C660; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 13:51:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (unknown [10.33.36.44]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB6E5D9C6; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 13:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <17242A0C-3613-41BB-84E4-2617A182216E@fb.com> To: "Theodore Ts'o" Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, James Bottomley , Chris Mason , Johannes Weiner , Kent Overstreet , Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , linux-fsdevel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , "Darrick J. Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , "ksummit@lists.linux.dev" Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Folios as a potential Kernel/Maintainers Summit topic? Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1763246.1631800271.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:51:11 +0100 Message-ID: <1763247.1631800271@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > My reading of the email threads is that they're iterating to an actual > > conclusion (I admit, I'm surprised) ... or at least the disagreements > > are getting less. Since the merge window closed this is now a 5.16 > > thing, so there's no huge urgency to getting it resolved next week. > > My read was that it was more that people were just getting exhausted, > and not necessarily that folks were converging. The problem, from where I sit, is that I'd started rebasing my stuff on top of Willy's patches and making use of them in the expectation that they were likely to go in - and I think other people might have been doing that too based on some of the comments. However, that's all been thrown up in the air. Not only did they not get merged in this window, it's not currently looking certain that they'd get merged in the next window either. So what do I do? Do I defoliate my patches - which then risks merge conflicts with the folio patches? Or do I stick with the foliation and hope that Willy's goes in next time? Some guidance as to what's likely to happen to the folio patches would be really appreciated! David