Re: [git pull] vfs part 3

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:26:48PM -0400, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >         That leaves only the actual d_inode annotations series out of the
> > stuff already in for-next; there are several piles of stuff from various
> > folks I'm going to add there tonight, leave it all to stew until the middle
> > of the next week or so and send the final pull request then.  I hoped to do
> > that last bit on Monday, but since there won't be -next on Thursday and
> > Friday, this will probably have to happen a couple of days later ;-/
> 
> We can just leave that for next time.
> 
> I abhor this "feed things in chunks _during_ the merge window".
> 
> If this had been four different and separate branches that did
> separate cleanups and had all been independently of each other in
> linux-next since before the merge window, and had been in a "ready to
> merge" state, that would be one thing. But this kind of "let's feed
> Linus one chunk, then work on the next one" is not how it is supposed
> to work. Not during the merge window,

Actually, the pull requests so far (as well as d_inode annotation patches)
had been in -next - the main reason for not sending a single pull request
was the fact that such single pull would bring in a large part of net-next.
Separation between #2 and #3 wasn't due to "work on the next one" kind of
thing either - both had been there at the same time...

How do you prefer to deal with the situations like one with net-next?
I really don't know - mostly I've managed to avoid that kind of merges
from other trees, so it hadn't come up.  This time the topology inside
vfs.git#for-next had ended up much trickier than usual...

And do you have problems with actual d_inode/d_backing_inode annotation
patches left in for-next?