On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 05:31:16AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 05:27:49AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 05:12:19PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > I /am/ beginning to wonder, though -- seeing as Christoph and Matthew > > > both have very large patchsets changing things in fs/iomap/, how would > > > you like those landed? Christoph's iterator refactoring looks like it > > > could be ready to go for 5.15. Matthew's folio series looks like a > > > mostly straightforward conversion for iomap, except that it has 91 > > > patches as a hard dependency. > > > > > > Since most of the iomap changes for 5.15 aren't directly related to > > > folios, I think I prefer iomap-for-next to be based directly off -rcX > > > like usual, though I don't know where that leaves the iomap folio > > > conversion. I suppose one could add them to a branch that itself is a > > > result of the folio and iomap branches, or leave them off for 5.16? > > > > Maybe willy has a different opinion, but I thought the plan was to have > > the based folio enablement in 5.15, and then do things like the iomap > > conversion in the the next merge window. If we have everything ready > > this window we could still add a branch that builds on top of both > > the iomap and folio trees, though. > > Yes, my plan was to have the iomap conversion and the second half of the > page cache work hit 5.16. If we're ready earlier, that's great! Both > you and I want to see both the folio work and the iomap_iter work > get merged, so I don't anticipate any lack of will to get the work done. Ok, good. I'll await a non-RFC version of the iterator rework for 5.15, and folio conversions for 5.16. --D
