From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:38:00 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Dave Chinner Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Message-ID: <20160123233800.GS17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20160123145854.GM17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160123223456.GH6033@dastard> <20160123224435.GI6033@dastard> <20160123230944.GR17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160123230944.GR17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:09:44PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 09:44:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > FWIW, I'm not opposed to making such a locking change - I'm more > > concerned about the fact I'm finding out about plans for such a > > fundamental locking change from a pull request on the last day of a > > merge window.... > > Look at the commit message (*and* pull request posting) of an earlier vfs.git > pull request in the beginning of this window. Or into the thread back in > May when it had been first proposed (and pretty much the same patch had been > generated and posted by Linus). Changes needed for parallel ->lookup() had > been discussed; it was a side branch of one of the RCU symlink threads and > ISTR your own postings in it. See http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2160034.html for the former (Jan 12, two days into this window) and e.g. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/16/297 for the latter. And yes, you had been Cc'd on that thread back in May, including the posting in question - even posted in other branches of that thread, both before and after...