From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:08:51 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Al Viro Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , sandeen@redhat.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/28] fs: fixes for serious clone/dedupe problems Message-ID: <20181022050851.GY6311@dastard> References: <154013850285.29026.16168387526580596209.stgit@magnolia> <20181022022112.GW6311@dastard> <20181022043741.GX6311@dastard> <20181022045249.GP32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181022045249.GP32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 05:52:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 03:37:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Ok, this is a bit of a mess. the patches do not merge cleanly to a > > 4.19-rc1 base kernel because of all the changes to > > include/linux/fs.h that have hit the tree after this. There's also > > failures against Documentation/filesystems/fs.h > > > > IOWs, it's not going to get merged through the main XFS tree because > > I don't have the patience to resolve all the patch application > > failures, then when it comes to merge make sure all the merge > > failures end up being resolved correctly. > > > > So if I take it through the XFS tree, it will being a standalone > > branch based on 4.19-rc8 and won't hit linux-next until after the > > first XFS merge when I can rebase the for-next branch... > > How many conflicts does it have with XFS tree? I can take it via > vfs.git... I gave up after 4 of the first 6 or 7 patches had conflicts in vfs and documentation code. There were changes that went into 4.19-rc7 that changed {do|vfs}_clone_file_range() prototypes and this patchset hits prototypes adjacent to that multiple times. There's also a conflicts against a new f_ops->fadvise method. These all appear to be direct fallout of fixes needed for all the overlay f_ops changes. The XFS changes at the end of the patchset are based on commits that were merged into -rc7 and -rc8, so if you are using -rc8 as your base, then it all merges cleanly. There are no conflicts with the current xfs/for-next branch. I've just merged and built it into my test tree (-rc8, xfs/for-next, djwong/devel) so I can test it properly, but if it merges cleanly with the vfs tree you are building then that's probably the easiest way to merge it all... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com