On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:03:57AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Al, > would you mind taking a look at this part: > > On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 12:32 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > You'll notice that we have a bunch of configfs commits in our tree not acked by > > the configfs maintainers. These commits implement the concept of committable > > items in configfs - something that was well defined in the documentation for > > years but has remained unimplemented. Despite the first submission of these > > patches back in November 2020[1] and repeated pings & resending, configfs > > maintainers have remained unresponsive. After reviewing these on the GPIO > > mailing list, we decided to pick them up ourselves and send them your way > > together with the first user: the new GPIO simulator. > > It doesn't look huge to me, and I don't care all that deeply about > configfs, and honestly, I'm not seeing huge amounts of actual > development there, with recent commits all being about cleanup of vfs > changes (eg things like the new idmapping changes etc). > > That said, I really don't want to pull that with some core sanity checking. > > So Al, do you see anything horrendous in how that configfs thing uses > a rename to do kind of an "atomic swap" of configfs state? Give me a few hours; configfs is playing silly buggers with a lot of structures when creating/tearing down subtrees, and I'd actually expect more trouble with configfs data structures than with VFS ones. I'll take a look.