From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16078D26F for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:29:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="VdvzEUQQ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69FA1C433C7; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 08:29:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1698654595; bh=iddVwOpjBeNoZqOUu3zqkxBTA3ogXICvytlUFVA9R28=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VdvzEUQQw5mXkPiYTJRlRZByxvrlMzTqUbby84cLBjHlliKT4weKqcGAqfr9EamLu cvAs+pA3QVHsLR2Mj+yjT1D2gSPluQQSEIuLaoMgGR6VGiZruuDjx3UbyBgiHDdInM CCe0pcJ107lokyFeIzxUxjAd+AbzHOT3tly8YI7dMZiQ0972qv+T0ABLfvKpzn6yTY ogRoTN+4PkNIzMP75hekUEm+YaZYkm2a9/FEisjbLCLt0JE6ahSW0J5e8sWmyG4Svh 4gJdhs2LtpUinokMMmX+WNyl14V3v3nsHp6wWwJWQa/2KuEl6c8HqgoApGeFPCmCsk eL0Gwxa5vc1LA== Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:29:51 +0100 From: Christian Brauner To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL for v6.7] vfs super updates Message-ID: <20231030-anbelangt-droht-3f4947871874@brauner> References: <20231027-vfs-super-aa4b9ecfd803@brauner> <20231030092009.0880e5f3@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231030092009.0880e5f3@canb.auug.org.au> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 09:20:09AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Christian, > > On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 16:02:33 +0200 Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > The vfs.super tree originally contained a good chunk of the btrfs tree > > as a merge - as mentioned elsewhere - since we had intended to depend on > > work that Christoph did a few months ago. We had allowed btrfs to carry > > the patches themselves. > > > > But it since became clear that btrfs/for-next likely does not contain > > any of the patches there's zero reason for the original merge. So the > > merge is dropped. It's not great because it's a late change but it's > > better than bringing in a completely pointless merge. > > Can you please update what you are including in linux-next to match > what you are asking Linus to merge. I pushed it out right when I got up. Sorry for the slight delay. I hope the reason for this late change are not unreasonable. Let me know in case there's a better solution I didn't think of for such a change.