On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:27 AM, cgxu <cgxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 在 2017年11月28日，下午5:00，Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> 写道： >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:18 AM, cgxu <cgxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >> [...] >>>> Unless I am missing something subtle here, you should export vfs >>>> __sync_filesystem and call it from here instead of duplicating it. >>>> Any technical reason not to do it? >>>> >>> >>> Actually, not a technical reason. How about below modification? >>> If it looks good I’ll send patch on new mail thread. >>> >> >> Much better. See one nit below. >> Why new mail thread? It is better if you send V3 patch with same subject >> and change log since V2, so maintainer knows this patch supersedes >> the previous one. >> > > Thank you, got it. > BTW, currently I use mainline tree, should I rebase on overlay-next? or other tree? > Current overlay-next is merged to master and your patch makes very little changes outside fs/overlayfs so the answer is it doesn't matter. Usually you should rebase on overlay-next when posting a patch to overlayfs maintainer. Cheers, Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
