On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 09:40:33AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 20:57:58 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 04:18:19 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Please include a new tree in linux-next: > > > > > > https://git.infradead.org/users/willy/pagecache.git/shortlog/refs/heads/for-next > > > aka > > > git://git.infradead.org/users/willy/pagecache.git for-next > > > > > > There are some minor conflicts with mmotm. I resolved some of them by > > > pulling in three patches from mmotm and rebasing on top of them. > > > These conflicts (or near-misses) still remain, and I'm showing my > > > resolution: > > > > I'm thinking that it would be better if I were to base all of the -mm > > MM patches on linux-next. Otherwise Stephen is going to have a pretty > > miserable two months... > > If they are only minor conflicts, then please leave them to me (and > Linus). That way if Linus decides not to take the folio tree or the > mmotm changes (or they get radically changed), then they are not > contaminated by each other ... hints (or example resolutions) are > always welcome. I think conceptually, the folio for-next tree is part of mmotm for this cycle. I would have asked Andrew to carry these patches, but there are people (eg Dave Howells) who want to develop against them. And that's hard to do with patches that are in mmotm. So if Andrew bases mmotm on the folio tree for this cycle, does that make sense?
