On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:20:32PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:04 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/xfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/xfs-ioctl-table > > > > > > Lots to like in that handful of patches. :) > > > > > > It can easily go before or after Arnd's patch, and the merge > > > conflict either way would be minor, so I'm not really fussed either > > > way this gets sorted out... > > > > The other thing we could do is to just pick the two important ones: > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/xfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/xfs-ioctl-table-5.3 > > > > and throw that into Arnds series, or even 5.3, and then defer the > > table thing until later. > > If we can have your "xfs: fall back to native ioctls for unhandled compat > ones" in 5.3, that would be ideal from my side, then I can just drop the > corresponding patch from my series and have the rest merged for 5.4. > > The compat_ptr addition is independent of my series, I just added it > because I noticed it was missing, so we can merged that through > the xfs tree along with your other changes, either for 5.3 or 5.4. Er... do the two patches in the -5.3 branch actually fix something that's broken? I sense s390 is missing a pointer sanitization check or something...? --D > Arnd
