On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:00:15 +0800 Joseph Qi <joseph.qi at linux.alibaba.com> wrote:> > > On 4/18/23 8:56 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 05:37:06PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: > >> Andrew picked ocfs2 patches into -mm tree before. > > Yup and that's fine obviously, but this belongs to fs/ and we're aiming > > to take fs/ stuff through the dedicated fs trees going forward. > > Either is fine for me. > Hi Andrew, what's your opinion?I've been wrangling ocfs2 for over a decade and this is the first I've heard of this proposal. Who is "we", above? What was their reasoning? Who will be responsible for ocfs2 patches? What will be their workflow and review and test processes? Overall, what benefit does this proposal offer the ocfs2 project?
Christian Brauner
2023-Apr-20 09:34 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: reduce ioctl stack usage
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:> On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:00:15 +0800 Joseph Qi <joseph.qi at linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4/18/23 8:56 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 05:37:06PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: > > >> Andrew picked ocfs2 patches into -mm tree before. > > > Yup and that's fine obviously, but this belongs to fs/ and we're aiming > > > to take fs/ stuff through the dedicated fs trees going forward. > > > > Either is fine for me. > > Hi Andrew, what's your opinion? > > I've been wrangling ocfs2 for over a decade and this is the first I've > heard of this proposal. > > Who is "we", above? What was their reasoning? > > Who will be responsible for ocfs2 patches? What will be their workflow > and review and test processes? > > Overall, what benefit does this proposal offer the ocfs2 project?I think I might not have communicated as clearly as I should have. Simply because I naively assumed that this is unproblematic. By "we" I mean people responsible for "fs/" which now happens to also include me. So the goal of this is for patches falling under fs/ to get picked up more quickly and broadly and share the maintenance burden. Since ocfs2 falls under fs/ it felt pretty straightforward that it should go via one of the fs/ trees and thus I picked it up and didn't bat an eye that it might somehow bother you. For us as in "fs/" it's nicer because it means if we do fs wide changes we'll reduce chances of merge conflicts.