From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the vfs tree Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 15:39:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20180622115346.1e9cc433@canb.auug.org.au> <29411.1529671523@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20180622130600.GY30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180622130600.GY30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: David Howells , Reinette Chatre , Stephen Rothwell , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Al Viro wrote: > 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. Yes, that works. Reinette, can you please look into creating that ordering. Then we just zap the existing branch and redo it with this scheme. Thanks, tglx