From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09203C433E0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:36:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E252072D for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:36:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727090AbgE2Ogf (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 10:36:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41548 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726838AbgE2Oge (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 10:36:34 -0400 Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [IPv6:2002:c35c:fd02::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEF25C03E969; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.93 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jeg7J-00HaRL-1s; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:36:13 +0000 Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 15:36:13 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Gao Xiang Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Gao Xiang , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Chengguang Xu , Chao Yu Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the erofs tree Message-ID: <20200529143613.GE23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20200529114501.3e2ecc14@canb.auug.org.au> <20200529015111.GA23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200529034007.GA12648@xiangao.remote.csb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200529034007.GA12648@xiangao.remote.csb> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:40:07AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > I'm fine with that, although I think it's mainly with vfs changes > so could be better though with vfs tree. I will add this patch > tomorrow anyway... Thanks for reminder! FWIW, my reasoning here is * erofs tree exists and * the patch is erofs-specific, affects nothing outside and has no dependencies with anything currently done in VFS or in other filesystems and * it does have (trivial) conflicts with the stuff in erofs tree So putting it into erofs tree would seem to be an obvious approach - minimizes the amount of cross-tree dependencies and headache for everyone involved... I'm dropping it from #work.misc and #for-next now.