Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

Kent Overstreet
2023-07-12T19:57:32Z

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:48:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 10:54:59PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > - Prereq patch series has been pruned down a bit more; also Mike
> > Snitzer suggested putting those patches in their own branch:
> >
> > https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git/log/?h=bcachefs-prereqs
> >
> > "iov_iter: copy_folio_from_iter_atomic()" was dropped and replaced
> > with willy's "iov_iter: Handle compound highmem pages in
> > copy_page_from_iter_atomic()"; he said he'd try to send this for -rc4
> > since it's technically a bug fix; in the meantime, it'll be getting
> > more testing from my users.
> >
> > The two lockdep patches have been dropped for now; the
> > bcachefs-for-upstream branch is switched back to
> > lockdep_set_novalidate_class() for btree node locks.
> >
> > six locks, mean and variance have been moved into fs/bcachefs/ for
> > now; this means there's a new prereq patch to export
> > osq_(lock|unlock)
> >
> > The remaining prereq patches are pretty trivial, with the exception
> > of "block: Don't block on s_umount from __invalidate_super()". I
> > would like to get a reviewed-by for that patch, and it wouldn't hurt
> > for others.
> >
> > previously posting:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bcachefs/20230509165657.1735798-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev/T/#m34397a4d39f5988cc0b635e29f70a6170927746f
>
> Can you send these prereqs out again, with maintainers CCed
> appropriately? (I think some feedback from the prior revision needs to
> be addressed first, though. For example, __flatten already exists, etc.)

Thanks for pointing that out, I knew it was in the pipeline :)

Will do...