On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 6/22/2018 6:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Al Viro wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:45:23PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> >>> Reinette Chatre <reinette.cha...@intel.com> 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.
>
> Will do. How would you prefer to consume this to make the branches
> simple to create? Is it ok if I create a new patch series with Al's
> suggestion above as the first commit?
>
> The original pseudo-locking patch series consisted out of two sections
> with the pseudo-locking specific parts starting in the middle. If I
> create a new series with the above change then it will not be cleanly
> separate anymore. Is that ok?
That's fine. Just mention it clearly in the changelog of that first one or
two patches you need for that.
Thanks,
tglx
