Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the vfs tree

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:45:23PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Thomas and David, please let me know what I can do from my side to help
> > > with this.
> > 
> > You could try basing on Al Viro's for-next tree which has the mount API
> > changes in it.
> 
> Umm...  That would be a massive headache for everyone involved; the changes
> in there have very little in common with what you are doing in rdt_mount(),
> so it might make sense to start with a minimal never-rebased branch that
> would
> 	* define rdt_pseudo_lock_init as 0
> 	* define rdt_pseudo_lock_release as empty
> 	* do the rdt_mount() part of a3dbd01e6c9d
> 	* have commit message along the lines of
> "hooks in rdt_mount() for rdt_pseudo_lock to use
> 
> Functionally a no-op right now; the only reason for having that
> as a never-rebased branch to get rdt_pseudo_lock and mount series
> out of each other's hair"
> 
> Base that on -rc1, then pull it into your rdt branch and David could pull the
> same into his.

Yes, that works.

Reinette, can you please look into creating that ordering. Then we just zap
the existing branch and redo it with this scheme.

Thanks,

	tglx