From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF34C04A6B for ; Wed, 8 May 2019 21:47:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A430216C4 for ; Wed, 8 May 2019 21:47:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="pBlRZGaL" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726883AbfEHVr4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2019 17:47:56 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f194.google.com ([209.85.214.194]:46433 "EHLO mail-pl1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726591AbfEHVr4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2019 17:47:56 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f194.google.com with SMTP id bi2so29701plb.13; Wed, 08 May 2019 14:47:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5bNHEZyoMBk+M3klI9aU53M2aRLAmC1Bv+JFzOfGHa0=; b=pBlRZGaLwQVLu6p7WDopNzOsjrEGhrlO/Y573oVOa0V1JmJhiKJX7YKDURJpbhWIfh p7Pmn+fT58/zf0jzExbvDtqLLvCG33F+IqblJJSkAIHEWVrb+0dGx4Ht2fruP1duuFAO lICxbo4B0JTwANqsBnhW/FNlAyKrxSwn9bn8fowc/TSTzd7O4/WR1OzQoQ6ftdDzjwCG 0rgiMmMf7zN4+SIP6dzG9PoM40O+4YCUG+05j0eC9zQEryfct5+tFjIizEajdI/xcicX Yc8sgGy5gKVjaEz91MYZr2C6pAam2vrBmnFoEGbEGNlueLj8a2HYZhn6e5un5lRMhBdR X9Gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5bNHEZyoMBk+M3klI9aU53M2aRLAmC1Bv+JFzOfGHa0=; b=nzGKJ9DGkfK2cG5+lh4YgqjJ1EBZOSmRSGEvyXHhWi0JxiI4trIQoSEHaSpX1ILm7u +5fZr78hBLeExkACy+D0iy7Q3boiVgQ2XwJCDTMMwHpIMSQf0oeLacFertoieu39Dt1r 3IYApzBi9sBBGPR4S+Je32qdwXOqTP7vxIJP2BXwGQn0qINFRCWa9mI1GpUg1/zXnF0c hp92lj1QKTAJsC1I00z0JDRyFvOUpTkQ59sXnvlN74LxVEYklI70T820aJMJg094rzVl HnV/41SQuQW1CgEkGmTCwrl8LqumECIINddz/dl32PhF4WDIEhViFaDfdvk7Kj+d7vnH a+zA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUudpQL1Q1ZI9WuU0NiPJ+mdsuT1Qu1jdPyZFwrVSUZ+8bZR4OF 0rhGQjIrJfxWyAt95d6xZwHKIZ6qjc5RL2OHfhBcZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxZh9GqHMV6SQwteGF/JoL1z9bDQTTi2v9t2Ry5aUK/J9uIr86FN0DdFGdCrfU9nIkUusb604Ppp8Z18reiUVg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b105:: with SMTP id q5mr190268plr.290.1557352074726; Wed, 08 May 2019 14:47:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Steve French Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 16:47:43 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] CIFS/SMB3 fixes To: Linus Torvalds Cc: CIFS , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-cifs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:37 PM Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 11:32 AM Steve French wrote: > > > > [..] Our > > build verification tests passed (and continue to be extended to > > include more tests). See e.g. our 'buildbot' results at: > > http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/2/builds/199 > > Still, is there any reason for that very late rebase? > > Why are all the commits so recent? Most of the commits were from April, three from March, only a few more recent. I rebased yesterday (bad idea it seems based on your note) simply to avoid any potential merge conflict with the two broad VFS changes (unrelated to my PR) that hit cifs code yesterday (albeit they turned out to be very small). > And perhaps even more importantly, why is the base for that rebase is > some completely random and inappropriate commit in the middle of the > merge window? Understood. I had originally based it on v5.1 tag, but changed that for testing after I saw two other PR's hit I wanted to run the regression tests on 'current' mainline with the changes in for-next code just in case (very unlikely) the other two changes that I hadn't seen that hit cifs since 5.1 broke anything or caused conflicts. > So don't do the whole "rebase the day before" in the first place, but > *DEFINITELY* don't do it when you then pick a random and bad point to > rebase things on top of! Understood - will do the rebase for our verification testing only (e.g. to spot any regressions in recent global or VFS changes) but not for sending to you. So for future, will try to send with base as that of mainline kernel as of he last cifs PR merge or new kernel version or rc (e.g. v5.2-rc1 or v5.1 etc) whichever is more recent. Is that ok? -- Thanks, Steve