On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 10:26:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 11:55:30 +1100 Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The remainder are more -mm focussed. However they do depend on the fs/dax > > cleanups in the first half so the trick would be making sure Andrew only takes > > them if the nvdimm.git changes have made it into -next. I'm happy with either > > approach, so let me know if I should split the series or not. > > My inclination is to put it all into the nvdimm tree, with appropriate > MM developer acks. > > But I'm having difficulty determining how practical that is because the > v3 series is almost a month old so my test merging was quite ugly. > > Perhaps you could prepare a new-doesn't-need-to-be-final version for > people to look at and to aid with this head-scratching? I have just sent a new-maybe-almost-final v4 rebased on top of next-20241216 to help with the head-scratching. I haven't yet done extensive build tests or a full xfs-test run on it yet because it sounded better to get it out sooner. So no doubt the kernel build bot will find some fat finger of mine somewhere :-) That said the rebase wasn't awful so let me know if it should be rebased on a different tree. - Alistair
