Re: cleanup block-style layouts exports v2

["Chuck Lever" <cel@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2026, at 10:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 12:01:39PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 01:10:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 03:26:09PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> > > > Christian, are you OK if I take this series through the NFSD tree?
>> > > 
>> > > Hm, I generally prefer infrastructure to go through the VFS tree.
>> > > You can get a stable branch ofc.
>> > 
>> > Communicating this earlier would be helpful.  If we switch to a new
>> > tree base we're going to miss this merge window.
>> 
>> The series was sent on April 1 so with about 2 weeks before the merge
>> window... If your series isn't ready by -rc5 what is it doing being
>> merged for the coming merge window is the other side of the question. So
>> afaict, there's no hurry.
>
> That's a very weird generic standard.  I know a lot of subsystem don't
> take complex core changes until a bit before the cutoff, but killing
> 3 weeks of the merge window for everything is odd.
>
> Even more I'm not even why we're having that discussion - exportfs
> has it's own maintainers, one of whom ACKed this including the whole
> tree discussion.

In this case, pNFS is the only consumer that will notice or use the
new "infrastructure" and us NFS experts are the only ones who can test
and review it properly. And, the likelihood of conflicts with patches
in nfsd-testing is high (in fact we've already had at least one). It
makes sense to me to take this series through NFSD.


-- 
Chuck Lever