From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f70.google.com (mail-pl0-f70.google.com [209.85.160.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7246B2215 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 22:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f70.google.com with SMTP id e8-v6so307325plt.4 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org. [2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x24-v6si547137pgh.295.2018.08.21.19.50.41 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:50:40 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XArray for 4.19 Message-ID: <20180822025040.GA12244@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180813161357.GB1199@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-mm , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 07:09:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:14 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > Please consider pulling the XArray patch set. > > So this merge window has been horrible, but I was just about to start > looking at it. > > And no. I'm not going to pull this. > > For some unfathomable reason, you have based it on the libnvdimm tree. > I don't understand at all wjhy you did that. I said in the pull request ... There are two conflicts I wanted to flag; the first is against the linux-nvdimm tree. I rebased on top of one of the branches that went into that tree, so if you pull my tree before linux-nvdimm, you'll get fifteen commits I've had no involvement with. Dan asked me to do that so that his commit (which I had no involvement with) would be easier to backport. At the time I thought this was a reasonable request; I know this API change is disruptive and I wanted to accommodate that. I didn't know his patch was "complete garbage"; I didn't review it. So, should I have based just on your tree and sent you a description of what a resolved conflict should look like? > And since I won't be merging this, I clearly won't be merging your > other pull request that depended on this either. I can yank most of the patches (all but the last two, iirc) out of the IDA patchset and submit those as a separate pull request. Would that be acceptable? I'm really struggling to juggle all the pieces here to get them merged.