On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 07:35:57PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:05:56 -0800 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > - Remove PTE_DEVMAP definitions from Loongarch which were added since > > > > this series was initially written. > > > [..] > > > > > > > > base-commit: e25c8d66f6786300b680866c0e0139981273feba > > > > > > If this is going to go through nvdimm.git I will need it against a > > > mainline tag baseline. Linus will want to see the merge conflicts. > > > > > > Otherwise if that merge commit is too messy, or you would rather not > > > rebase, then it either needs to go one of two options: > > > > > > - Andrew's tree which is the only tree I know of that can carry > > > patches relative to linux-next. > > > > I used to be able to do that but haven't got around to setting up such > > a thing with mm.git. This is the first time the need has arisen, > > really. > > Oh, good to know. > > > > > > - Wait for v6.14-rc1 > > > > I'm thinking so. Darrick's review comments indicate that we'll be seeing a v7. I'm ok with that. It could do with a decent soak in linux-next anyway given it touches a lot of mm and fs. Once v6.14-rc1 is released I will do a rebase on top of that. > > > and get this into nvdimm.git early in the cycle > > > when the conflict storm will be low. > > > > erk. This patchset hits mm/ a lot, and nvdimm hardly at all. Is it > > not practical to carry this in mm.git? > > I'm totally fine with it going through mm.git. nvdimm.git is just the > historical path for touches to fs/dax.c, and git blame points mostly to > me for the issues Alistair is fixing. I am happy to review and ack and > watch this go through mm.git.
