On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:40:07AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > I'm fine with that, although I think it's mainly with vfs changes > so could be better though with vfs tree. I will add this patch > tomorrow anyway... Thanks for reminder! FWIW, my reasoning here is * erofs tree exists and * the patch is erofs-specific, affects nothing outside and has no dependencies with anything currently done in VFS or in other filesystems and * it does have (trivial) conflicts with the stuff in erofs tree So putting it into erofs tree would seem to be an obvious approach - minimizes the amount of cross-tree dependencies and headache for everyone involved... I'm dropping it from #work.misc and #for-next now.
