On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:46:52PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:26 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 11:46:57AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > Miklos, > > > > > > Following some more cleanup patches that make Christian's new mount api > > > patches smaller and easier to review. > > > > > > I had rebased Christain's patches over these cleanups and pushed the > > > result to github branch fs-overlayfs-mount_api [1]. > > > > > > The v1 prep patches had a bug with xino option parsing that resulted in > > > some tests being skipped (not failing) and I had only noticed the > > > skipped test after posting v1. > > > > > > The v2 prep patches + new mount api patches have passed all the tests > > > with no new tests skipped. > > > > > > In addition to running the tests with the default kernel config, I also > > > ran the tests with the following non-default configs (individually): > > > > > > 1) CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_REDIRECT_DIR=y > > > 2) CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_REDIRECT_ALWAYS_FOLLOW=n > > > 3) CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_XINO_AUTO=y > > > > Thanks for splitting some work into preparatory patches. I'm not sure > > how worthwhile this actually is given they aren't marked as backports > > for LTS releases so the overall delta ould still the same between LTSes > > and mainline but it might make bisection easier. > > Yeh, bisection, review, all the usual reasons for keep unrelated changes > split. I am not usually fanatic about splitting hairs on this, but the > mount api porting patch was already a big change that was hard for me to > review and it grew all those extra additions like redirect_mode which > were good changes, but not related, so I did this to make my own (and others) > review of your patches easier. > > I am glad if we are all happy with the end result. Yeah, I appreciate the work and wasn't trying to critique it. I just wouldn't have bothered because the mount api port in itself is cumbersome enough. :)
