From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] test_dummy_encryption fixes and cleanups
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 15:36:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yn6zJR2peMo5hIcF@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220501050857.538984-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:08:50PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> We can either take all these patches through the fscrypt tree, or we can
> take them in multiple cycles as follows:
>
> 1. patch 1 via ext4, patch 2 via f2fs, patch 3-4 via fscrypt
> 2. patch 5 via ext4, patch 6 via f2fs
> 3. patch 7 via fscrypt
>
> Ted and Jaegeuk, let me know what you prefer.
In order to avoid patch conflicts with other patch series, what I'd
prefer is to take them in multiple cycles. I can take patch #1 in my
initial pull request to Linus, and then do a second pull request to
Linus with patch #5 post -rc1 or -rc2 (depending on when patches #3
and #4 hit Linus's tree).
Does that sound good?
- Ted
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 0/7] test_dummy_encryption fixes and cleanups
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 15:36:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yn6zJR2peMo5hIcF@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220501050857.538984-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:08:50PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> We can either take all these patches through the fscrypt tree, or we can
> take them in multiple cycles as follows:
>
> 1. patch 1 via ext4, patch 2 via f2fs, patch 3-4 via fscrypt
> 2. patch 5 via ext4, patch 6 via f2fs
> 3. patch 7 via fscrypt
>
> Ted and Jaegeuk, let me know what you prefer.
In order to avoid patch conflicts with other patch series, what I'd
prefer is to take them in multiple cycles. I can take patch #1 in my
initial pull request to Linus, and then do a second pull request to
Linus with patch #5 post -rc1 or -rc2 (depending on when patches #3
and #4 hit Linus's tree).
Does that sound good?
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-13 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-01 5:08 [PATCH v2 0/7] test_dummy_encryption fixes and cleanups Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] ext4: only allow test_dummy_encryption when supported Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-11 12:50 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-11 12:50 ` [f2fs-dev] " Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-11 17:18 ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-11 17:18 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] f2fs: reject test_dummy_encryption when !CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] fscrypt: factor out fscrypt_policy_to_key_spec() Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] fscrypt: add new helper functions for test_dummy_encryption Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] ext4: fix up test_dummy_encryption handling for new mount API Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-09 23:40 ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-09 23:40 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-11 17:54 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-11 17:54 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-11 18:03 ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-11 18:03 ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-13 10:58 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-13 10:58 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-13 22:24 ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-13 22:24 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-13 11:07 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-13 11:07 ` [f2fs-dev] " Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-13 21:59 ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-13 21:59 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] f2fs: use the updated test_dummy_encryption helper functions Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] fscrypt: remove fscrypt_set_test_dummy_encryption() Eric Biggers
2022-05-01 5:08 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-09 23:36 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] test_dummy_encryption fixes and cleanups Eric Biggers
2022-05-09 23:36 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2022-05-10 23:23 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-10 23:23 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim
2022-05-13 19:36 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2022-05-13 19:36 ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-05-13 23:26 ` Eric Biggers
2022-05-13 23:26 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Yn6zJR2peMo5hIcF@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.