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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 3B331C43144 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 15:09:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9C524465 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 15:09:34 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EF9C524465 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com 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 S1754296AbeFVPJd (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:09:33 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:41579 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754236AbeFVPJb (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:09:31 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jun 2018 08:09:22 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,257,1526367600"; d="scan'208";a="66382474" Received: from rchatre-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.254.80.177]) ([10.254.80.177]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2018 08:09:21 -0700 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the vfs tree To: Thomas Gleixner , Al Viro Cc: David Howells , Stephen Rothwell , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20180622115346.1e9cc433@canb.auug.org.au> <29411.1529671523@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20180622130600.GY30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> From: Reinette Chatre Message-ID: <5462d90a-0cac-ca10-1633-275a9836ad41@intel.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:09:21 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, On 6/22/2018 6:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 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. Will do. How would you prefer to consume this to make the branches simple to create? Is it ok if I create a new patch series with Al's suggestion above as the first commit? The original pseudo-locking patch series consisted out of two sections with the pseudo-locking specific parts starting in the middle. If I create a new series with the above change then it will not be cleanly separate anymore. Is that ok? Reinette