Hi,
在 2024/03/19 10:13, Matthew Sakai 写道:
On 3/18/24 21:43, Yu Kuai wrote:
Hi,
在 2024/03/19 9:18, Yu Kuai 写道:
Hi,
在 2024/03/18 17:39, Christian Brauner 写道:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:49:33AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
Hi, Christian
在 2024/03/15 21:54, Christian Brauner 写道:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 08:08:49PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
Hi, Christian
Hi, Christoph
Hi, Jan
Perhaps now is a good time to send a formal version of this set.
However, I'm not sure yet what branch should I rebase and send
this set.
Should I send to the vfs tree?
Nearly all of it is in fs/ so I'd say yes.
.
I see that you just create a new branch vfs.fixes, perhaps can I
rebase
this set against this branch?
Please base it on vfs.super. I'll rebase it to v6.9-rc1 on Sunday.
Okay, I just see that vfs.super doesn't contain commit
1cdeac6da33f("btrfs: pass btrfs_device to btrfs_scratch_superblocks()"),
and you might need to fix the conflict at some point.
And there is another problem, dm-vdo doesn't exist in vfs.super yet. Do
you still want me to rebase here?
The dm-vdo changes don't appear to rely on earlier patches in the
series, so I think dm-vdo could incorporate the dm-vdo patch
independently from the rest of the series, if that would be helpful. (I
don't want to confuse things too much.) In that case it would go through
the dm tree with the rest of dm-vdo.
We want to remove the 'bd_inode' field in this set. And if we want to go
through dm tree for dm-vdo changes, we must keep the field for now.
I don't have preference, Christian will make the decision. 😉
Thanks,
Kuai
Matt
.
