On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 05:03:52PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 10:36:06PM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote: > > This is a combination of two patchsets: > > 1.fsdax-rmap: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20220419045045.1664996-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > 2.fsdax-reflink: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20210928062311.4012070-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Changes since v13 of fsdax-rmap: > > 1. Fixed mistakes during rebasing code to latest next- > > 2. Rebased to next-20220504 > > > > Changes since v10 of fsdax-reflink: > > 1. Rebased to next-20220504 and fsdax-rmap > > 2. Dropped a needless cleanup patch: 'fsdax: Convert dax_iomap_zero to > > iter model' > > 3. Fixed many conflicts during rebasing > > 4. Fixed a dedupe bug in Patch 05: the actuall length to compare could be > > shorter than smap->length or dmap->length. > > PS: There are many changes during rebasing. I think it's better to > > review again. > > > > == > > Shiyang Ruan (14): > > fsdax-rmap: > > dax: Introduce holder for dax_device > > mm: factor helpers for memory_failure_dev_pagemap > > pagemap,pmem: Introduce ->memory_failure() > > fsdax: Introduce dax_lock_mapping_entry() > > mm: Introduce mf_dax_kill_procs() for fsdax case > > Hmm. This patchset touches at least the dax, pagecache, and xfs > subsystems. Assuming it's too late for 5.19, how should we stage this > for 5.20? Yeah, it's past my "last date for this merge cycle" which was -rc6. I expected stuff might slip a little - as it has with the LARP code - but I don't have the time and bandwidth to start working on merging another feature from scratch before the merge window comes around. Getting the dax+reflink stuff in this cycle was always an optimistic stretch, but I wanted to try so that there was no doubt it would be ready for merge in the next cycle... > I could just add the entire series to iomap-5.20-merge and base the > xfs-5.20-merge off of that? But I'm not sure what else might be landing > in the other subsystems, so I'm open to input. It'll need to be a stable branch somewhere, but I don't think it really matters where al long as it's merged into the xfs for-next tree so it gets filesystem test coverage... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
