On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:02:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:33:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> > >>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Joel, > >>> > >>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google) > >>>>> <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week > >>>>>> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same > >>>>>> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by > >>>>>> Andy [2]. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181111173650.GA256781@xxxxxxxxxx/ > >>>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/69CE06CC-E47C-4992-848A-66EB23EE6C74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd") > >>>>> > >>>>> What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in? > >>>> > >>>> It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history? > >>> > >>> Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed > >> tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only > >> barely a git tree. > > > > I wouldn't go so far to call it nonsense. It was a working patch, it just did > > things differently. Your help with improving the patch is much appreciated. > > I’m not saying the patch is nonsense — I’m saying the *hash* may be > nonsense. akpm uses a bunch of .patch files and all kinds of crazy scripts, > and the mmotm.git tree is not stable at all. > Oh, ok. Sorry for misunderstanding and thanks for clarification. :-) > > I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with > > the original, then I can do that and send another patch. > > > > > > From experience, Andrew will food in fixups on request :) Andrew, could you squash this patch into the one titled ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")? That one was already picked up by -next but I imagine you might have a crazy script as Andy pointed out for exactly these situations. ;-) thanks, - Joel
