On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 20:57, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 2:22 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:33 PM Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - Pass iocb to ctx->end_write() instead of file + pos
> > > >
> > > > - Get rid of ctx->user_file, which is redundant most of the time
> > > >
> > > > - Instead pass iocb to backing_file_splice_read and
> > > > backing_file_splice_write
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > v2:
> > > > Pass ioctb to backing_file_splice_{read|write}()
> > > >
> > > > Applies on fuse.git#for-next.
> > >
> > > This looks good to me.
> > > you may add
> > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > However, this conflicts with ovl_real_file() changes on overlayfs-next
> > > AND on the fixes in fuse.git#for-next, so we will need to collaborate.
> > >
> > > Were you planning to send the fuse fixes for the 6.12 cycle?
> > > If so, I could rebase overlayfs-next over 6.12-rcX after fuse fixes
> > > are merged and then apply your patch to overlayfs-next and resolve conflicts.
> >
> > Wouldn't you be able to use a shared branch?
> >
> > If you're able to factor out the backing file changes I could e.g.,
> > provide you with a base branch that I'll merge into vfs.file, you can
> > use either as base to overlayfs and fuse or merge into overlayfs and
> > fuse and fix any potential conflicts. Both works and my PRs all go out
> > earlier than yours anyway.
>
> Yes, but the question remains, whether Miklos wants to send the fuse
> fixes to 6.12-rcX or to 6.13.
> I was under the impression that he was going to send them to 6.12-rcX
> and this patch depends on them.
Yes, the head of the fuse#for-next queue should go to 6.12-rc, the
cleanup should wait for the next merge window.
So after the fixes are in linus tree, both the overlay and fuse trees
can be rebased on top of the shared branch containing the cleanup,
right?
Thanks,
Miklos
