On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:42 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The branch is straight from Miklos' tree (it's #fileattr_v6 there),
> sat merged into vfs.git #for-next for a while. Not sure what's the normal
> way to do pull requests in situations like that - do you prefer a reference
> to my tree (as below) or to mszeredi/vfs.git?
This is fine. The only downside here is that there was no signed tag,
which I would have preferred - either from you or from Milkos.
We've had this a couple of times before, and I've started trying to
"document" it with a "Pull X from Y via Z" thing. See for example
git show 836d7f0572ca 70cd33d34c60
which is a similar kind of thing where Borislav just forwarded Ard's
work (and it has happened in the past a couple of times without those
kinds of notices).
Btw, unrelated to that, this pull request got a conflict with
64708539cd23 ("btrfs: use btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock inode
lock helpers")
which I think I sorted out correctly (the "inode_lock()" is now done
by the VFS layer for the fileattr things, and the btrfs use of
"btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock" ended up being undone). But just
to be safe I'm cc'ing the btrfs people involved. Please double-check
that I didn't screw something up.
(Note: it doesn't show up as a conflict in the merge itself, because
each piece was a straight "take the case from one side or the other",
and in this case "take it from the fileattr" side meant that the
inode_[un]lock -> btrfs_inode_[un]lock conversion for the fileattr
cases just went away).
Linus
