On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:54:59PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:35:02PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Sure, I'm not a maintainer and just the stand-in patch shepherd for > > a single release. However, being unable to cleanly merge code we > > need integrated into our local subsystem tree for integration > > testing because a patch dependency with another subsystem won't gain > > a stable commit ID until the next merge window is .... distinctly > > suboptimal. > > Yes. Which is why we've taken a lot of mm patchs through other trees, > sometimes specilly crafted for that. So I guess in this case we'll > just need to take non-trivial dependencies into the XFS tree, and just > deal with small merge conflicts for the trivial ones. OK. As Naoyo has pointed out, the first dependency/conflict Ruan has listed looks trivial to resolve. The second dependency, OTOH, is on a new function added in the patch pointed to. That said, at first glance it looks to be independent of the first two patches in that series so I might just be able to pull that one patch in and have that leave us with a working fsdax+reflink tree. Regardless, I'll wait to see how much work the updated XFS/DAX reflink enablement patchset still requires when Ruan posts it before deciding what to do here. If it isn't going to be a merge candidate, what to do with this patchset is moot because there's little to test without reflink enabled... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
