Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

[Kent Overstreet]

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@xxxxxxxxx/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...