On Tue, 10 May 2022 18:55:50 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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... > > So how about let the notify_failure() bits go through -mm this cycle, > if Andrew will have it, and then the reflnk work has a clean v5.19-rc1 > baseline to build from? What are we referring to here? I think a minimal thing would be the memremap.h and memory-failure.c changes from https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220508143620.1775214-4-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx ? Sure, I can scoot that into 5.19-rc1 if you think that's best. It would probably be straining things to slip it into 5.19. The use of EOPNOTSUPP is a bit suspect, btw. It *sounds* like the right thing, but it's a networking errno. I suppose livable with if it never escapes the kernel, but if it can get back to userspace then a user would be justified in wondering how the heck a filesystem operation generated a networking errno?
