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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 CC84BC4321D for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 02:50:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F6D217B4 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 02:50:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="anaR1EwH" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 64F6D217B4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727998AbeHVGN3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2018 02:13:29 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:37570 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726469AbeHVGN3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2018 02:13:29 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=LnpUi0P8aw9/8Z4iKcTA9INx6QFkqvT1G9oa2dDTsFE=; b=anaR1EwHBKP6r2YIxUxQG10Qm lga5y850v57SKMxfeQlf2NR8hxwAOQRyK5gcQEemvQLcUQ+++sealp43Ia4Mmxg6+r2JE4AXaHVdV phv94IszEO+elw8lUQ2X/6Rt5P8PkyN94flFhYsMTu8m904KaS//NYo443nufAhQ3N7S/PGabz3g9 F2gCuMaMEEE8qy3HrKFcFUGL69CizRezJ55OwS8V4b0tS6nSUqLFWP5K2BeWcoQ4nNYw2yNXSrGkP 4/qf2qjOQC3u4kf2NHsl/ozZbERQKFf5ROBRXdwIe/6Vd7XWxRI4KoIRjOrKzgNh9Vp6F8xLPpy4u GPUhHXsLg==; Received: from willy by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fsJEG-0006nB-LY; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 02:50:40 +0000 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:50:40 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-mm , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XArray for 4.19 Message-ID: <20180822025040.GA12244@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180813161357.GB1199@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 07:09:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:14 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > Please consider pulling the XArray patch set. > > So this merge window has been horrible, but I was just about to start > looking at it. > > And no. I'm not going to pull this. > > For some unfathomable reason, you have based it on the libnvdimm tree. > I don't understand at all wjhy you did that. I said in the pull request ... There are two conflicts I wanted to flag; the first is against the linux-nvdimm tree. I rebased on top of one of the branches that went into that tree, so if you pull my tree before linux-nvdimm, you'll get fifteen commits I've had no involvement with. Dan asked me to do that so that his commit (which I had no involvement with) would be easier to backport. At the time I thought this was a reasonable request; I know this API change is disruptive and I wanted to accommodate that. I didn't know his patch was "complete garbage"; I didn't review it. So, should I have based just on your tree and sent you a description of what a resolved conflict should look like? > And since I won't be merging this, I clearly won't be merging your > other pull request that depended on this either. I can yank most of the patches (all but the last two, iirc) out of the IDA patchset and submit those as a separate pull request. Would that be acceptable? I'm really struggling to juggle all the pieces here to get them merged.