On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:45:23PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Thomas and David, please let me know what I can do from my side to help > > > with this. > > > > You could try basing on Al Viro's for-next tree which has the mount API > > changes in it. > > Umm... That would be a massive headache for everyone involved; the changes > in there have very little in common with what you are doing in rdt_mount(), > so it might make sense to start with a minimal never-rebased branch that > would > * define rdt_pseudo_lock_init as 0 > * define rdt_pseudo_lock_release as empty > * do the rdt_mount() part of a3dbd01e6c9d > * have commit message along the lines of > "hooks in rdt_mount() for rdt_pseudo_lock to use > > Functionally a no-op right now; the only reason for having that > as a never-rebased branch to get rdt_pseudo_lock and mount series > out of each other's hair" > > Base that on -rc1, then pull it into your rdt branch and David could pull the > same into his. Yes, that works. Reinette, can you please look into creating that ordering. Then we just zap the existing branch and redo it with this scheme. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
