From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the aio tree with the vfs tree Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 05:19:39 +0000 Message-ID: <20160315051939.GG17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20160315150640.02a4db30@canb.auug.org.au> <20160315043448.GE17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160315050712.GF17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160315050712.GF17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Benjamin LaHaise , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:07:12AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > There *is* a reason for code review. Or, at least, asking somebody familiar > with the code you are working with whether some assumption you are making > is true or false. Me, for example, in our conversation regarding earlier parts > of aio.git queue about a week ago. Or at any other point. While we are at it, 150a0b49 ("aio: add support for async openat()") is also crap. fs_struct and files_struct is nowhere near enough. And yes, I realize that your application probably doesn't step into it. Which means that these patches are just fine for your private kernel. _Not_ for mainline. Reviewed-and-NAKed-by: Al Viro