From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the vfs tree Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:06:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20180622130600.GY30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20180622115346.1e9cc433@canb.auug.org.au> <29411.1529671523@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <29411.1529671523@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Cc: Reinette Chatre , Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:45:23PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Reinette Chatre wrote: > > > Thomas and David, please let me know what I can do from my side to help > > with this. > > You could try basing on Al Viro's for-next tree which has the mount API > changes in it. Umm... That would be a massive headache for everyone involved; the changes in there have very little in common with what you are doing in rdt_mount(), so it might make sense to start with a minimal never-rebased branch that would * define rdt_pseudo_lock_init as 0 * define rdt_pseudo_lock_release as empty * do the rdt_mount() part of a3dbd01e6c9d * have commit message along the lines of "hooks in rdt_mount() for rdt_pseudo_lock to use Functionally a no-op right now; the only reason for having that as a never-rebased branch to get rdt_pseudo_lock and mount series out of each other's hair" Base that on -rc1, then pull it into your rdt branch and David could pull the same into his.