On 11/5/24 8:40 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:11:52AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 11/5/24 8:08 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 05:52:05AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> >>>> Why is this so difficult to grasp? It's a pretty common method for >>>> cross subsystem work - it avoids introducing conflicts when later >>>> work goes into each subsystem, and freedom of either side to send a >>>> PR before the other. >>>> >>>> So please don't start committing the patches again, it'll just cause >>>> duplicate (and empty) commits in Linus's tree. >>> >>> Jens, what's going on is that in order to test untorn (aka "atomic" >>> although that's a bit of a misnomer) writes, changes are needed in the >>> block, vfs, and ext4 or xfs git trees. So we are aware that you had >>> taken the block-related patches into the block tree. What Darrick has >>> done is to apply the the vfs patches on top of the block commits, and >>> then applied the ext4 and xfs patches on top of that. >> >> And what I'm saying is that is _wrong_. Darrick should be pulling the >> branch that you cut from my email: >> >> for-6.13/block-atomic >> >> rather than re-applying patches. At least if the intent is to send that >> branch to Linus. But even if it's just for testing, pretty silly to have >> branches with duplicate commits out there when the originally applied >> patches can just be pulled in. > > I *did* start my branch at the end of your block-atomic branch. > > Notice how the commits I added yesterday have a parent commitid of > 1eadb157947163ca72ba8963b915fdc099ce6cca, which is the head of your > for-6.13/block-atomic branch? Ah that's my bad, I didn't see a merge commit, so assumed it was just applied on top. Checking now, yeah it does look like it's done right! Would've been nicer on top of current -rc and with a proper merge commit, but that's really more of a style preference. Though -rc1 is pretty early... > But, it's my fault for not explicitly stating that I did that. One of > the lessons I apparently keep needing to learn is that senior developers > here don't actually pull and examine the branches I link to in my emails > before hitting Reply All to scold. You obviously didn't. I did click the link, in my defense it was on the phone this morning. And this wasn't meant as a scolding, nor do I think my wording really implies any scolding. My frustration was that I had explained this previously, and this seemed like another time to do the exact same. So my apologies if it came off like that, was not the intent. -- Jens Axboe
