Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v6 0/9] Support negative dentries on case-insensitive ext4 and f2fs

[Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>]

On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 06:11:39PM -0500, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 01:07:54 -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> >> This is v6 of the negative dentry on case-insensitive directories.
> >> Thanks Eric for the review of the last iteration.  This version
> >> drops the patch to expose the helper to check casefolding directories,
> >> since it is not necessary in ecryptfs and it might be going away.  It
> >> also addresses some documentation details, fix a build bot error and
> >> simplifies the commit messages.  See the changelog in each patch for
> >> more details.
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >
> > Ok, let's put it into -next so it sees some testing.
> > So it's too late for v6.7. Seems we forgot about this series.
> > Sorry about that.
> 
> Christian,
> 
> We are approaching -rc2 and, until last Friday, it didn't shown up in
> linux-next. So, to avoid turning a 6 month delay into 9 months, I pushed
> your signed tag to linux-next myself.
> 
> That obviously uncovered a merge conflict: in v6.6, ceph added fscrypt,
> and the caller had to be updated.  I fixed it and pushed again to
> linux-next to get more testing.
> 
> Now, I don't want to send it to Linus myself. This is 100% VFS/FS code,
> I'm not the maintainer and it will definitely raise eyebrows.  Can you
> please requeue and make sure it goes through this time?  I'm happy to

My current understanding is that core dcache stuff is usually handled by
Al. And he's got a dcache branches sitting in his tree.

So this isn't me ignoring you in any way. My hands are tied and so I
can't sort this out for you easily.

> drop my branch from linux-next once yours shows up.
> 
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krisman/unicode.git/log/?h=negative-dentries
> 
> This branch has the latest version with the ceph conflict folded in.  I
> did it this way because I'd consider it was never picked up and there is
> no point in making the history complex by adding a fix on top of your
> signed tag, since it already fails to build ceph.
> 
> I can send it as a v7; but I prefer you just pull from the branch
> above. Or you can ack and I'll send to Linus.