Nouveau - Jun 2019 - [PATCH 16/25] device-dax: use the dev_pagemap internal refcount

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:27:44AM -0700, Dan Williams
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com>
wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > The functionality is identical to the one currently open coded in
> > > device-dax.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
> > > Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny at intel.com>
> > >  drivers/dax/dax-private.h |  4 ----
> > >  drivers/dax/device.c      | 43
---------------------------------------
> > >  2 files changed, 47 deletions(-)
> >
> > DanW: I think this series has reached enough review, did you want
> > to ack/test any further?
> >
> > This needs to land in hmm.git soon to make the merge window.
> 
> I was awaiting a decision about resolving the collision with Ira's
> patch before testing the final result again [1]. You can go ahead and
> add my reviewed-by for the series, but my tested-by should be on the
> final state of the series.
The conflict looks OK to me, I think we can let Andrew and Linus
resolve it.

Thanks,
Jason

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:02 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:27:44AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at
mellanox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig
wrote:
> > > > The functionality is identical to the one currently open
coded in
> > > > device-dax.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny at intel.com>
> > > >  drivers/dax/dax-private.h |  4 ----
> > > >  drivers/dax/device.c      | 43
---------------------------------------
> > > >  2 files changed, 47 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > DanW: I think this series has reached enough review, did you want
> > > to ack/test any further?
> > >
> > > This needs to land in hmm.git soon to make the merge window.
> >
> > I was awaiting a decision about resolving the collision with Ira's
> > patch before testing the final result again [1]. You can go ahead and
> > add my reviewed-by for the series, but my tested-by should be on the
> > final state of the series.
>
> The conflict looks OK to me, I think we can let Andrew and Linus
> resolve it.
>
Andrew's tree effectively always rebases since it's a quilt series.
I'd recommend pulling Ira's patch out of -mm and applying it with the
rest of hmm reworks. Any other git tree I'd agree with just doing the
late conflict resolution, but I'm not clear on what's the best
practice when conflicting with -mm.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:08 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at
intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:02 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at
mellanox.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:27:44AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at
mellanox.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig
wrote:
> > > > > The functionality is identical to the one currently
open coded in
> > > > > device-dax.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny at intel.com>
> > > > >  drivers/dax/dax-private.h |  4 ----
> > > > >  drivers/dax/device.c      | 43
---------------------------------------
> > > > >  2 files changed, 47 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > DanW: I think this series has reached enough review, did you
want
> > > > to ack/test any further?
> > > >
> > > > This needs to land in hmm.git soon to make the merge window.
> > >
> > > I was awaiting a decision about resolving the collision with
Ira's
> > > patch before testing the final result again [1]. You can go ahead
and
> > > add my reviewed-by for the series, but my tested-by should be on
the
> > > final state of the series.
> >
> > The conflict looks OK to me, I think we can let Andrew and Linus
> > resolve it.
> >
>
> Andrew's tree effectively always rebases since it's a quilt series.
> I'd recommend pulling Ira's patch out of -mm and applying it with
the
> rest of hmm reworks. Any other git tree I'd agree with just doing the
> late conflict resolution, but I'm not clear on what's the best
> practice when conflicting with -mm.
Regardless the patch is buggy. If you want to do the conflict
resolution it should be because the DEVICE_PUBLIC removal effectively
does the same fix otherwise we're knowingly leaving a broken point in
the history.