I am an upstream Linux kernel maintainer too. My ideals and approach are different but they are my own ;) The first localio RFC (that made it to list as v2) was posted on June 11. I have tried to work well with you and everyone willing to help and engage. So for it to come to this exchange is unfortunate. Development with excess rebases is just soul-sucking. My v11's 0th header certainly conveyed exhaustion in that aspect of how things have gone as this series has evolved. I clearly upset you by suggesting v11 suitable to merge for 6.11. I really wasn't trying to be pushy. I didn't think it controversial, but I concede not giving you much to work with if/when you disagreed. Sorry about painting you into a corner. v11 is a solid basis to develop upon further. I am all for iterating further, am aware it is my burden to carry, and am hopeful we can get localio staged in linux-next early during the 6.12 development window. Let it soak (Anna's instinct was solid). However, I'm hopeful to avoid the hell of frequent rebasing ontop of refactored code that optimizes approaches that this v11 baseline provides. SO I'd like to propose I carry the v11 baseline in my git tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/snitzer/linux.git/log/?h=nfs-localio-for-next And any changes (e.g. Neil's promising refactor to avoid needing "fake" svc_rqst) can be based on 'nfs-localio-for-next' with standalone incremental commits that can possibly get folded via a final rebase once we're happy with the end result of the changes? Thanks, Mike
