On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:11:03PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > It would be best to merge [1/4] via the btrfs tree. Please add my > > > > > > Acked-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > Although I think it would be better if [1/4] merely did the code > > > movement. Adding those BUG_ON()s is a semantic/functional change and > > > really shouldn't be bound up with the other things this patch series > > > does. > > > > I proposed this too and was told 'no'... > > > > <quote> > > If we put in into a separate patch, someone will suggest backing out the > > patch which tells us that there's a problem. > > </quote> > > -- https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201209201415.GT7338@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Yeah, no, please let's not do this. Bundling an offtopic change into > [1/4] then making three more patches dependent on the ontopic parts of > [1/4] is just rude. > > I think the case for adding the BUG_ONs can be clearly made. And that > case should at least have been clearly made in the [1/4] changelog! > > (Although I expect VM_BUG_ON() would be better - will give us sufficient > coverage without the overall impact.) I'm ok with VM_BUG_ON() > > Let's please queue this up separately. Ok can I retain your Ack on the move part of the patch? Note that it does change kmap_atomic() to kmap_local_page() currently. Would you prefer a separate change for that as well? Ira PS really CC'ing Matthew now...
