On 6/30/22 4:11 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 05:15:45AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: >> ... doing revert if we end up not using some pages >> >> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > ... and the first half of that thing conflicts with "block: relax direct > io memory alignment" in -next... > > Joy. It's not hard to redo on top of the commit in there; the > question is, how to deal with conflicts? > > I can do a backmerge, provided that there's a sane tag or branch to > backmerge from. Another fun (if trivial) issue in the same series > is around "iov: introduce iov_iter_aligned" (two commits prior). > > Jens, Keith, do you have any suggestions? AFAICS, variants include > * tag or branch covering b1a000d3b8ec582da64bb644be633e5a0beffcbf > (I'd rather not grab the entire for-5.20/block for obvious reasons) > It sits in the beginning of for-5.20/block, so that should be fairly > straightforward, provided that you are not going to do rebases there. > If you are, could you put that stuff into an invariant branch, so > I'd just pull it? > * feeding the entire iov_iter pile through block.git; > bad idea, IMO, seeing that it contains a lot of stuff far from > anything block-related. > * doing a manual conflict resolution on top of my branch > and pushing that out. Would get rid of the problem from -next, but > Linus hates that kind of stuff, AFAIK, and with good reasons. > > I would prefer the first variant (and that's what I'm > going to do locally for now - just > git tag keith_stuff bf8d08532bc19a14cfb54ae61099dccadefca446 > and backmerge from it), but if you would prefer to deal with that > differently - please tell. I'm not going to rebase it, and I can create a tag for that commit for you. Done, it's block-5.20-al. I did the former commit, or we can move the tag so it includes bf8d08532bc19a14cfb54ae61099dccadefca446? That'd be the whole series of that patchset, which is just that one extra patch. -- Jens Axboe
