On giovedì 2 marzo 2023 20:35:59 CET 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; Yes, I know this. In fact this thread started with the pull request you sent to Linus on Feb 23. My patches to fs/sysv already credited you with the "Suggested-by:" tag. Sorry if I have not been clear about what I was talking about. > for minix and ufs, My series of patches for fs/ufs (again all with the "Suggested-by: Al Viro <...>" tags - it's only missing in the cover letter) are at the following address since Dec 29, 2022. I don't know why they haven't yet applied to the relevant tree: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221229225100.22141-1-fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx/ As far as fs/minix is regarded I submitted nothing for it. I'm not sure about who wants to work on the patches for that filesystem. > if you > want to do those - whatever you want, I'd probably go for "modeled after > sysv series in 6.2" - "Suggested-by" in those would suffice... I know nothing about how fs/minix is designed and I don't yet know whether or not I can easily model the patches to it after sysv and ufs series. I'll take a look in the next days. > > @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... Sorry for the confusion about ext2. I think I have not been clear about my intentions. Please let me summarize: 1) You sent the pull request for sysv. In that email to Linus you wrote "Fabio's "switch to kmap_local_page()" patchset (originally after the ext2 counterpart, with a lot of cleaning up done to it; as the matter of fact, ext2 side is in need of similar cleanups - calling conventions there are bloody awful). Plus the equivalents of minix stuff..." 2) I replied by asking whether someone else were already working on ext2 as you suggested above. I asked for that information because I thought I could do the work modeling after sysv and ufs. 3) You wrote about a "demo patchset" somewhere in one of your trees. 4) Jan replied that he likes your "demo patchset" (I haven't yet taken a look at those because I supposed they were modeled after the suggestions you provided to me for sysv and ufs, so I thought I have no reasons to take a look at them) and asked me to "pick your demo patches and put them to completion". Now I'm confused about what you want to be done with your "demo patchset" because I don't know what you mean by "demo" and why you showed you have that patchset. I mean... do you want them only tested and reviewed? Any other task to be done on them? Thanks, Fabio
