On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 07:35:59PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 12:31:46PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>
> > But... when yesterday Al showed his demo patchset I probably interpreted his
> > reply the wrong way and thought that since he spent time for the demo he
> > wanted to put this to completion on his own.
> >
> > Now I see that you are interpreting his message as an invite to use them to
> > shorten the time...
> >
> > Furthermore I'm not sure about how I should credit him. Should I merely add a
> > "Suggested-by:" tag or more consistent "Co-authored-by: Al Viro <...>"? Since
> > he did so much I'd rather the second but I need his permission.
>
> What, for sysv part? It's already in mainline; for minixfs and ufs, if you want
> to do those - whatever you want, I'd probably go for "modelled after sysv
> series in 6.2" - "Suggested-by" in those would suffice...
>
> > @Al,
> >
> > Can I really proceed with *your* work? What should the better suited tag be to
> > credit you for the patches?
> >
> > If you can reply today or at least by Friday, I'll pick your demo patchset,
> > put it to completion, make the patches and test them with (x)fstests on a
> > QEMU/KVM x86_32 bit VM, with 6GB RAM, running an HIGHMEM64GB enabled kernel.
>
> Frankly, ext2 patchset had been more along the lines of "here's what untangling
> the calling conventions in ext2 would probably look like" than anything else.
> If you are willing to test (and review) that sucker and it turns out to be OK,
> I'll be happy to slap your tested-by on those during rebase and feed them to
> Jan...
PS: now we can actually turn
kunmap_local((void *)((unsigned long)page_addr & PAGE_MASK));
into
kunmap_local(page_addr);
provided that commit doing that includes something along the lines of
Do-Not-Backport-Without: 88d7b12068b9 "highmem: round down the address passed to kunmap_flush_on_unmap()"
in commit message.
