On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 08:42:29AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:52 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:46:31 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > My merge resolution is here [1]. Christoph, please have a look. The > > > rebase and the merge result are both passing my test and I'm now going > > > to review the individual patches. However, while I do that and collect > > > acks from DM and EROFS folks, I want to give Stephen a heads up that > > > this is coming. Primarily I want to see if someone sees a better > > > strategy to merge this, please let me know, but if not I plan to walk > > > Stephen and Linus through the resolution. > > > > It doesn't look to bad to me (however it is a bit late in the cycle :-( > > ). Once you are happy, just put it in your tree (some of the conflicts > > are against the current -rc3 based version of your tree anyway) and I > > will cope with it on Monday. > > Christoph, Darrick, Shiyang, > > I'm losing my nerve to try to jam this into v5.16 this late in the > cycle. Always a solid choice to hold off for a little more testing and a little less anxiety. :) I don't usually accept new code patches for iomap after rc4 anyway. > I do want to get dax+reflink squared away as soon as possible, > but that looks like something that needs to build on top of a > v5.16-rc1 at this point. If Linus does a -rc8 then maybe it would have > enough soak time, but otherwise I want to take the time to collect the > acks and queue up some more follow-on cleanups to prepare for > block-less-dax. I think that hwpoison-calls-xfs-rmap patchset is a prerequisite for dax+reflink anyway, right? /me had concluded both were 5.17 things. --D
