On 7/19/22 8:45 PM, Al Viro wrote: > 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...) Great, thanks Al. -- Jens Axboe
