On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 04:18:19AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 05:31:14PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > AFAICT, nobody is attempting to land any major changes in any of the vfs > > remap functions during the 5.10 window -- for-next showed conflicts only > > in the Makefile, so it seems like a quiet enough time to do this. There > > are no functional changes here, it's just moving code blocks around. > > > > So, I have a few questions, particularly for Al, Andrew, and Linus: > > > > (1) Do you find this reorganizing acceptable? > > No objections, assuming that it's really a move (it's surprisingly easy to > screw that up - BTDT ;-/) > > I have not done function-by-function comparison, but assuming it holds... > no problem. <nod> The only changes between before and after are that some of the functions lose their static status, and some gain it; and a minor indenting issue that I'll fix for the final patch series. As far as makefiles go, both read_write.o and filemap.o are both obj-y targets, so I think it's safe to make remap_range.o also an obj-y target. The fun part will be the careful Kconfig surgery to make remap_range.o an optional build target, but that will come later. > > (2) I was planning to rebase this series next Friday and try to throw it > > in at the end of the merge window; is that ok? (The current patches are > > based on 5.9, and applying them manually to current master and for-next > > didn't show any new conflicts.) > > Up to Linus. I don't have anything in vfs.git around that area; the > only remaining stuff touching fs/read_write.c is nowhere near those, > AFAICS. <nod> Thanks. :) --D
