On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 05:27:49AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 05:12:19PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > I /am/ beginning to wonder, though -- seeing as Christoph and Matthew > > both have very large patchsets changing things in fs/iomap/, how would > > you like those landed? Christoph's iterator refactoring looks like it > > could be ready to go for 5.15. Matthew's folio series looks like a > > mostly straightforward conversion for iomap, except that it has 91 > > patches as a hard dependency. > > > > Since most of the iomap changes for 5.15 aren't directly related to > > folios, I think I prefer iomap-for-next to be based directly off -rcX > > like usual, though I don't know where that leaves the iomap folio > > conversion. I suppose one could add them to a branch that itself is a > > result of the folio and iomap branches, or leave them off for 5.16? > > Maybe willy has a different opinion, but I thought the plan was to have > the based folio enablement in 5.15, and then do things like the iomap > conversion in the the next merge window. If we have everything ready > this window we could still add a branch that builds on top of both > the iomap and folio trees, though. Yes, my plan was to have the iomap conversion and the second half of the page cache work hit 5.16. If we're ready earlier, that's great! Both you and I want to see both the folio work and the iomap_iter work get merged, so I don't anticipate any lack of will to get the work done.
