Hi Thomas, On 6/22/2018 6:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 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. Will do. How would you prefer to consume this to make the branches simple to create? Is it ok if I create a new patch series with Al's suggestion above as the first commit? The original pseudo-locking patch series consisted out of two sections with the pseudo-locking specific parts starting in the middle. If I create a new series with the above change then it will not be cleanly separate anymore. Is that ok? Reinette -- 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
