On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 09:20:57PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:29 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 ? > > Latest is here: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220508143620.1775214-1-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. > > Hmm, if it's straining things and XFS will also target v5.20 I think > the best course for all involved is just wait. Let some of the current > conflicts in -mm land in v5.19 and then I can merge the DAX baseline > and publish a stable branch for XFS and BTRFS to build upon for v5.20. Sounds good to /me... --D > > 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?
