On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:59:39AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:25:43AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:55:13 +0200 David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I have updated my for-next branch again, sorry (top commit 1a4dc97c883a4f763cbaf50). > > > There are some fixes I don't want to miss from the 6.7 pull request. > > > There should be minimal change to the VFS tree conflict resolution so > > > the diff should be reusable. > > > > So, why did you not just merge in v6.6-rc7 (or better yet, the branch > > that contains the fix(es) that Linus merged) and then apply your new > > commits on top of that? All the commits that were in the btrfs tree > > have been rebased unchanged. > > Please reconsider that and follow Stephen's suggestion. I'm sending pull > requests this week and it'd be really annoying having to rebase > vfs.super right before sending them. > > We let you carry the required patches in btrfs on your insistence even > though this effectively blocked two patchsets for a whole cycle I hope I explained my reasons already under that series, core btrfs changes should not go via VFS tree. > and then > merged in btrfs into vfs.super for that. Rebasing on such short notice > is really not very nice. Like said in the my other reply, the amount of VFS changes asks for stopping taking new patches to btrfs and not continuing the patch workflow that I've been doing. I understand that the inter-tree dependencies are never easy so it's about finding some common way and splitting the work over more releases eventually. A resync of our branches a week before merge window, when there are no significant changes on my side does not sound like too short notice, but you can feel otherwise of course. > I'm going to wait with the rebase for a bit. Ok, don't rebase. I'll push to linux-next the previous snapshot and will find a way how to deliver the new patches.
