On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:52:12AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 7/17/22 10:58 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:59:32PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Al, > >> > >> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 02:04:02 +0100 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 01:52:25AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > >>> > >>>> Ones from Keith's branch - #alignment-fixes-rebased in there. Looks like > >>>> one of the commits in it got changed since then - the difference in > >>>> __bio_iov_iter_get_pages() (unsigned int i initialization). > >>>> > >>>> Sigh... I'll rebase on top of that. > >>> > >>> Rebased and pushed out (with copy_pipe_to_iter() fix folded in as well) > >> > >> BTW, these still cause a conflict. As long as you are sharing patches > >> (and then adding changes to the same areas), there will be conflicts. > >> You need to share commits i.e. a shared branch. > > > > Sigh... That was (and is) a branch form Keith's tree. Commits in block > > tree are, AFAICS, cherry-picked from it, with lore links and Jens' s-o-b > > added. > > > > I'm fine with using that, just tell me how to refer to the branch in > > question. Jens? > > Are you fine with rebasing that one again? Seems the better approach > since it's all in one spot. The git location is: > > git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block for-5.20/block-iter > > which has all of them, and is the same base as the previous one. Do you > want a signed tag, or is the branch fine? Grabbed, rebased and force-pushed (identical tree object, so probably hadn't fucked it up...)
