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

[Jens Axboe]

On 7/19/22 8:45 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:52:12AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 7/17/22 10:58 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:59:32PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi Al,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 02:04:02 +0100 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 01:52:25AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ones from Keith's branch - #alignment-fixes-rebased in there.  Looks like
>>>>>> one of the commits in it got changed since then - the difference in
>>>>>> __bio_iov_iter_get_pages() (unsigned int i initialization).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sigh...  I'll rebase on top of that.  
>>>>>
>>>>> Rebased and pushed out (with copy_pipe_to_iter() fix folded in as well)
>>>>
>>>> BTW, these still cause a conflict.  As long as you are sharing patches
>>>> (and then adding changes to the same areas), there will be conflicts.
>>>> You need to share commits i.e. a shared branch.
>>>
>>> Sigh...  That was (and is) a branch form Keith's tree.  Commits in block
>>> tree are, AFAICS, cherry-picked from it, with lore links and Jens' s-o-b
>>> added.
>>>
>>> I'm fine with using that, just tell me how to refer to the branch in
>>> question.  Jens?
>>
>> Are you fine with rebasing that one again? Seems the better approach
>> since it's all in one spot. The git location is:
>>
>> git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block for-5.20/block-iter
>>
>> which has all of them, and is the same base as the previous one. Do you
>> want a signed tag, or is the branch fine?
> 
> Grabbed, rebased and force-pushed (identical tree object, so probably
> hadn't fucked it up...)

Great, thanks Al.

-- 
Jens Axboe