On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 2:27 PM Alexander Larsson <alexl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 6:15 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:15:15PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > This series depends on the commit > > > fsverity: rework fsverity_get_digest() again > > > Which is in the "for-next" branch of > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/fsverity/linux.git/ > > > > > > This series, plus the above commit are also in git here: > > > https://github.com/alexlarsson/linux/tree/overlay-verity > > > > > > I would love to see this go into 6.5. So Eric, could you maybe Ack the > > > implementation patches separately from the documentation patches? Then > > > maybe we can get this in early, and I promise to try to get the > > > documentation up to standard during the 6.5 cycle as needed. > > > > I think it's gotten too late for 6.5. If there is no 6.4-rc8, then the 6.5 > > merge window will open just 5 days from now. This series has recently gone > > through some significant changes, including in the version just sent out today > > which I haven't had a chance to review yet. > > > > Please don't try to rush things in when they involve UAPI and on-disk format > > changes, which will have to be supported forever. We need to take the time to > > get them right. > > > > I also see that the overlayfs tree is already very busy in 6.5, with the support > > for data-only lower layers, lazy lookup of lowerdata, and the new mount API. > > > > I think 6.6 would be a more realistic target. That would give time to write > > proper documentation as well, which is super important. (Very often while > > writing documentation, I realize that I should do something differently in the > > code. Please don't think of documentation as something can be done "later".) > > If 6.6 is what ends up happening I'm not gonna protest, it's not a > huge issue for me, only mildly inconvenient. But, for now I'll at > least keep targeting 6.5, and then we will have to see how it works > out wrt reviews and what Miklos decides. > > I pushed out a v5 series today too, because the v4 series conflicted > with some other changes in vfs.all that are staged for 6.5. v5 is also > a bit simplified based on Amirs feedback, has some documentation > updates and is refactored into more commits for easier review. > I reviewed v5 and it is all fine by me, but I do agree with Eric that it has become quite late for 6.5 and other reviewers need to get enough time to review v5, so no need to rush. I also need some time to test verity feature which I hadn't had the chance to do yet, so it looks like the stars are aligned for 6.6. I am planning to be on vacation around 6.5-rc2..6.5-rc6 - because of your efforts to get the patches ready in time for 6.5, I will now have time to test your patches before -rc6, so your efforts have not been in vain... Thanks, Amir.
