On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 09:02:38PM +0530, Nithurshen Karthikeyan wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 8:58 PM Gao Xiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As I told you the merging policy, each patch should have no > > regression, if concurrent directory traversal is useful, please > > just implement it as a base, I won't accept PATCH 1/2 since > > it has regression and useless. > > > As I told in the email, I am just stating that this patch is a definite > improvement and meets the merging policy, and I will implement > parallelised decompression on top of this patch only in a few days. > > I hope you could review this patch and let me know your thoughts.
So why it's called `[PATCH v2 2/2]` rather than [PATCH v6] fsck.erofs: implement concurrent directory traversal? >
