On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:21:02 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 03:55:44 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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? > > Sure. I will have a little pain the first day it appears, but it > should be OK after that. I am on leave starting Saturday, so if you > could get me a tree without the mmotm patches for tomorrow that would > be good. Sure, let's go that way. Linus wasn't terribly enthusiastic about the folio patches and I can't claim to be overwhelmed by their value/churn ratio (but many MM developers are OK with it all, and that counts). Doing it this way retains options...
