From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:57014 "EHLO
        ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726273AbeKBHKP (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 2 Nov 2018 03:10:15 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 22:05:19 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, swhiteho@redhat.com,
        john.johansen@canonical.com, alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com,
        ebiederm@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] mount API series
Message-ID: <20181101220518.GT32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20181031053355.GQ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=whAE6gVi18=u4sSWe1m2RWPh19YCkKQmW4Kx+NQX1mg8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <af28fc2c-d207-875e-8070-f64ead878b5a@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wjjVRQVZL+QMnb=CyCOY8yzEZ=S1DBCE7=FiiWsQfV_5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <28156.1541092687@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=whysoVxJU8+TBw=D3xN00HOOqg-9Chc=i0Pt+Ozm3Z0Tg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whysoVxJU8+TBw=D3xN00HOOqg-9Chc=i0Pt+Ozm3Z0Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:33:31AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Al - can I ask you to look at helping David with something like that?
> You tend to be very good at generating those patch-series with
> "obviously no changes" for the individual patches, but the end result
> ends up being totally different from the starting point (I'm thinking
> of all the locking and dentry refcounting series).

I'll try.  Before we go there, I'd like to get the rest of vfs.git off
my hands - AFS series and misc pile.  Will send pull requests shortly,
then - this stuff.  Do you mind if we end up with work.mount rebased?
The usual objections re testing in -next do not apply in this case,
AFAICS...