On 9/5/22 5:16 PM, John Hubbard wrote: > Hi Jens, > > After you suggested a topic branch [1] as a way to address the recent > bio_map_user_iov() conflict in linux-next, I've reviewed a few more > patchsets in mm, and am now starting to suspect that a topic branch > would be ideal here. > > Logan's "Userspace P2PDMA with O_DIRECT NVMe devices" series [2], my > "convert most filesystems to pin_user_pages_fast()" series [3], and the > block layer change from [1], all conflict in iov_iter*, and in > bio_map_user_iov(). > > Less of an issue but still worth considering, Dan's "Fix the DAX-gup > mistake" series [4] conflicts in gup.c, too. > > Maybe: > > gup_bio > > , or something like that, as a topic branch? > > Everyone: thoughts, preferences here? My suggestion would be to branch from for-6.1/block, then we can apply the gup patches on top of that. I'd probably just call it for-6.1/block-gup. -- Jens Axboe
