On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 05:58:25PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 10:57:06AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:20:32PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > This takes the approach from Dave, but adds a new flag instead of abusing > > > the nowait one, and keeps a simpler calling convention for iomap_dio_rw. > > > > Hm. I realized while putting together for-next branches that I really > > would have preferred the three iomap patches at the start so that I > > could push those parts through the iomap tree. The changes required to > > resequence the series is minor and the iomap changes (AFAICT) are inert > > if the calling fs doesn't set IOMAP_DIO_OVERWRITE_ONLY, so I think it's > > low risk to push the iomap changes into iomap-for-next as a 5.12 thing. > > > > The rest of the xfs patches in this series would form the basis of a > > second week pull request (or not) since I think I ought to evaluate the > > effects on performance for a little longer. > > So that is the reason why they aren't in for-next yet? Or do you want > the remaining patches resent on top of the iomap branch? Assuming they haven't changed, I'll just push the (slightly reordered) series out to for-next tomorrow. Sorry, I got totally sidetracked last week with the quota retry series nearly tripling in size with all the requested changes... :( --D
