On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 9:12 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8/13/21 3:32 AM, Dmitry Kadashev wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 2:25 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 7/8/21 12:34 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:35 PM Dmitry Kadashev <dkadashev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> v9: > >>>> - reorder commits to keep io_uring ones nicely grouped at the end > >>>> - change 'fs:' to 'namei:' in related commit subjects, since this is > >>>> what seems to be usually used in such cases > >>> > >>> Ok, ack from me on this series, and as far as I'm concerned it can go > >>> through the io_uring branch. > >> > >> I'll queue it up in a separate branch. I'm assuming we're talking 5.15 > >> at this point. > > > > Is this going to be merged into 5.15? I'm still working on the follow-up > > patch (well, right at this moment I'm actually on vacation, but will be > > working on it when I'm back), but hopefully it does not have to be > > merged in the same merge window / version? Especially given the fact > > that Al prefers it to be a bigger refactoring of the ESTALE retries > > rather than just moving bits and pieces to helper functions to simplify > > the flow, see here: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/20210715103600.3570667-1-dkadashev@xxxxxxxxx/ > > I added this to the for-5.15/io_uring-vfs branch: > > https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=for-5.15/io_uring-vfs > > had one namei.c conflict, set_nameidata() taking one more parameter, and > just a trivial conflict in each io_uring patch at the end. Can you double > check them? Looks good to me, thanks! -- Dmitry Kadashev
