On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 07:41:17PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 12/17/20 9:19 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Most callers check for non-zero return, and assume it's -ECHILD (which > > it always will be). One caller uses the actual error return. Clean this > > up and make it fully consistent, by having unlazy_walk() return a bool > > instead. Rename it to try_to_unlazy() and return true on success, and > > failure on error. That's easier to read. > > Al, were you planning on queuing this one up for 5.11 still? I'm fine > with holding for 5.12 as well, would just like to know what your plans > are. Latter goes for the whole series too, fwiw. Seeing that it has not sat in -next at all, what I'm going to do is to put it into 5.11-rc1-based branch. It's really been too late for something like that for this cycle and IME a topic branch started before the merges for previous cycle are over is too likely to require backmerges, if not outright rebases. So let's branch it at -rc1 and it'll go into #for-next from the very beginning.
