On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:41:15AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > iomap: Inline __iomap_zero_iter into its caller > > > > To make the merge easier, replicate the inlining of __iomap_zero_iter() > > into iomap_zero_iter() that is currently in the nvdimm tree. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Looks like a reasonable function promotion to me... > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, applied that to the commit. > > Shall I push out a version of this patch series which includes the > > "iomap: Inline __iomap_zero_iter into its caller" patch I pasted above? > > Yes. > > I've been distracted for months with first a Huge Customer Escalation > and now a <embargoed>, which means that I've been and continue to be > very distracted. I /think/ there are no other iomap patches being > proposed for inclusion -- Andreas' patches were applied as fixes during > 5.16-rc, Christoph's DAX refactoring is now in the nvdimm tree, and that > leaves Matthew's folios refactoring. > > So seeing as (I think?) there are no other iomap patches for 5.17, if > Matthew wants to add his branch to for-next and push directly to Linus > (rather than pushing to me to push the exact same branch to Linus) I > think that would be ... better than letting it block on me. IIRC I've > RVB'd everything in the folios branch. :( > > FWIW I ran the 5.17e branch through my fstests cloud and nothing fell > out, so I think it's in good enough shape to merge to for-next. Glad to hear it passed that thorough testing. Stephen, please pick up a new tree (hopefully just temporarily until Darrick can swim to the surface): git://git.infradead.org/users/willy/linux.git folio-iomap Hopefully the previous message will give you enough context for the merge conflict resolution.
