-next status as at week one of the v7.0 merge window

-next status as at week one of the v7.0 merge window

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

Hi Linus,

Trees being held at old versions:

  mm-nomm-unstable	next-20260213 (trivial -Werror thing from today)

No trees have signoff problems.

Merge summary:

  Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2227
  2029 files changed, 83194 insertions(+), 35136 deletions(-)

Top 5 trees adding commits to -next:

  146 ksmbd
  26  ntfs3
  20  vfs-brauner
  14  cifs
  12  ecryptfs
  11  ceph

(this is a slightly jank count which tries to exclude commits already in
parent trees, the first time I tried the top trees were a bunch of DRM
trees which all had the same 1500 commits plus a tiny number of
differences in which didn't seem super useful.)

Thanks,
mark

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: -next status as at week one of the v7.0 merge window

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 16/02/2026 16:52, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> Trees being held at old versions:
> 
>   mm-nomm-unstable	next-20260213 (trivial -Werror thing from today)
> 
> No trees have signoff problems.
> 
> Merge summary:
> 
>   Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2227
>   2029 files changed, 83194 insertions(+), 35136 deletions(-)
> 
> Top 5 trees adding commits to -next:
> 
>   146 ksmbd

And there is a bunch of warnings from LKP about ksmbd tree:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=ksmbd+f%3Alkp%40intel.com

and looking here:
https://github.com/smfrench/smb3-kernel/commits/ksmbd-for-next/

I see entire page of commits "committed 11 hours ago", so this entire
work might have never been in the next for this cycle thus never
actually integration tested?

>   26  ntfs3

I think this tree was requested to be added just a day before, so might
have the same problem - lack of wider build exposure.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: -next status as at week one of the v7.0 merge window

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 396 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 01:20:48PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/02/2026 16:52, Mark Brown wrote:

> >   26  ntfs3

> I think this tree was requested to be added just a day before, so might
> have the same problem - lack of wider build exposure.

No, that's a different one - this is the existing ntfs3, the newly
requested tree was ntfs and that wasn't present in yesterday's -next.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: -next status as at week one of the v7.0 merge window

[Steven French]

> And there is a bunch of warnings from LKP about ksmbd tree:

Metze has been addressing most of the warnings promptly.

> I see entire page of commits "committed 11 hours ago", so this entire work might have never been in the next for this cycle thus never actually integration tested?

This large series has been in ksmbd-for-next for about a week but had been going through testing for longer, and most of the changes are fairly narrowly scoped to the new smbdirect (rdma) module and much are small incremental patches for the moving to common code for smbdirect (from server and client).  There are at least three devs independently running (xfstests etc) tests against it and test results have looked good so far.  Most of this smbdirect work is being driven by Metze so adding him to cc:
-----Original Message-----
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 6:21 AM
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>; Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>; Steven French <Steven.French@microsoft.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: -next status as at week one of the v7.0 merge window

[You don't often get email from krzk@kernel.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

On 16/02/2026 16:52, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Trees being held at old versions:
>
>   mm-nomm-unstable    next-20260213 (trivial -Werror thing from today)
>
> No trees have signoff problems.
>
> Merge summary:
>
>   Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2227
>   2029 files changed, 83194 insertions(+), 35136 deletions(-)
>
> Top 5 trees adding commits to -next:
>
>   146 ksmbd

And there is a bunch of warnings from LKP about ksmbd tree:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=ksmbd+f%3Alkp%40intel.com

and looking here:
https://github.com/smfrench/smb3-kernel/commits/ksmbd-for-next/

I see entire page of commits "committed 11 hours ago", so this entire work might have never been in the next for this cycle thus never actually integration tested?

>   26  ntfs3

I think this tree was requested to be added just a day before, so might have the same problem - lack of wider build exposure.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: -next status as at week one of the v7.0 merge window

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1628 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 06:12:38PM +0000, Steven French wrote:

> This large series has been in ksmbd-for-next for about a week but had
> been going through testing for longer, and most of the changes are
> fairly narrowly scoped to the new smbdirect (rdma) module and much are
> small incremental patches for the moving to common code for smbdirect
> (from server and client).  There are at least three devs independently
> running (xfstests etc) tests against it and test results have looked
> good so far.  Most of this smbdirect work is being driven by Metze so
> adding him to cc:

Given that we're in the merge window now you should really only be
putting things in -next that are bugfixes or are otherwise intended to
go in during the merge window, when the merge window opened it looks
like the tip of tree for ksmbd was 164cacd0ba38 ("smb: server: correct
value for smb_direct_max_fragmented_recv_size") which has already been
merged so this is all new stuff.  New development should ideally wait
until -rc1, if it's going to be sent in the merge window the expectation
is that it should have been visible for testing in -next prior to the
merge window opening.

Now I look again the counts got confused by one of the intermediate
branches not being properly handled, the actual counts should
(hopefully) be:

120 amdgpu
143 phy-next
146 ksmbd
255 perf
297 char-misc

or excluding things that were already in -next when the merge window
opened:

39 drm-xe
42 net
63 mmc
69 amdgpu
146 ksmbd

(mmc had a build issue that had kept it out of -next and got the pull
dropped).  Sorry about the noise with the counts earlier.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]