LinuxLists.cc - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

2023-10-09 16:16:17

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

> I have dropped the vfs-brauner tree for today as there is no way I can
> sort them out in a reasonable time. Please sort this out between
> yourselves.

I'll fix that up!

2023-10-10 21:38:15

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

Hi Christian,

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 18:15:53 +0200 Christian Brauner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have dropped the vfs-brauner tree for today as there is no way I can
> > sort them out in a reasonable time. Please sort this out between
> > yourselves.
>
> I'll fix that up!

The btrfs tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git#for-next)
has moved again. I don't know (yet) if this will cause conflicts
again, but there is a good chance that it will.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachments:

2023-10-11 00:27:40

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

Hi all,

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 08:37:54 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 18:15:53 +0200 Christian Brauner <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I have dropped the vfs-brauner tree for today as there is no way I can
> > > sort them out in a reasonable time. Please sort this out between
> > > yourselves.
> >
> > I'll fix that up!
>
> The btrfs tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git#for-next)
> has moved again. I don't know (yet) if this will cause conflicts
> again, but there is a good chance that it will.

Yeah, I got those conflicts again, so dropped your tree again.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachments:

2023-10-11 09:27:33

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 08:37:54AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 18:15:53 +0200 Christian Brauner <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I have dropped the vfs-brauner tree for today as there is no way I can
> > > sort them out in a reasonable time. Please sort this out between
> > > yourselves.
> >
> > I'll fix that up!
>
> The btrfs tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git#for-next)
> has moved again. I don't know (yet) if this will cause conflicts
> again, but there is a good chance that it will.

I'm updating the for-next snapshost a few times a week but as this would
cause too much work for the VFS merges I'll do one more push but remove
anything that is not finalized for 6.7 merge window.

This should provide a stable base. I may need to push some fixes but
this could be done via the next-fixes branch so that it would not
interfere with auto-merging of the regular for-next.

2023-10-12 15:49:18

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:20:04AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 08:37:54AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 18:15:53 +0200 Christian Brauner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have dropped the vfs-brauner tree for today as there is no way I can
> > > > sort them out in a reasonable time. Please sort this out between
> > > > yourselves.
> > >
> > > I'll fix that up!
> >
> > The btrfs tree
> > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git#for-next)
> > has moved again. I don't know (yet) if this will cause conflicts
> > again, but there is a good chance that it will.
>
> I'm updating the for-next snapshost a few times a week but as this would
> cause too much work for the VFS merges I'll do one more push but remove
> anything that is not finalized for 6.7 merge window.
>
> This should provide a stable base. I may need to push some fixes but
> this could be done via the next-fixes branch so that it would not
> interfere with auto-merging of the regular for-next.

The branch for-next at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git
has been pushed with top commit c6e8f898f56fae2cb5bc4396bec480f23cd8b066
and I won't update it (expecting until the merge window).

2023-10-23 18:02:26

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 05:42:10PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:20:04AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 08:37:54AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Christian,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 18:15:53 +0200 Christian Brauner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have dropped the vfs-brauner tree for today as there is no way I can
> > > > > sort them out in a reasonable time. Please sort this out between
> > > > > yourselves.
> > > >
> > > > I'll fix that up!
> > >
> > > The btrfs tree
> > > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git#for-next)
> > > has moved again. I don't know (yet) if this will cause conflicts
> > > again, but there is a good chance that it will.
> >
> > I'm updating the for-next snapshost a few times a week but as this would
> > cause too much work for the VFS merges I'll do one more push but remove
> > anything that is not finalized for 6.7 merge window.
> >
> > This should provide a stable base. I may need to push some fixes but
> > this could be done via the next-fixes branch so that it would not
> > interfere with auto-merging of the regular for-next.
>
> The branch for-next at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git
> has been pushed with top commit c6e8f898f56fae2cb5bc4396bec480f23cd8b066
> and I won't update it (expecting until the merge window).

I have updated my for-next branch again, sorry (top commit 1a4dc97c883a4f763cbaf50).
There are some fixes I don't want to miss from the 6.7 pull request.
There should be minimal change to the VFS tree conflict resolution so
the diff should be reusable.

2023-10-23 21:26:05

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

Hi David,

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:55:13 +0200 David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I have updated my for-next branch again, sorry (top commit 1a4dc97c883a4f763cbaf50).
> There are some fixes I don't want to miss from the 6.7 pull request.
> There should be minimal change to the VFS tree conflict resolution so
> the diff should be reusable.

So, why did you not just merge in v6.6-rc7 (or better yet, the branch
that contains the fix(es) that Linus merged) and then apply your new
commits on top of that? All the commits that were in the btrfs tree
have been rebased unchanged.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachments:

2023-10-24 09:01:17

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: upcoming merge window: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

2023-10-24 15:39:47

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:25:43AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:55:13 +0200 David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I have updated my for-next branch again, sorry (top commit 1a4dc97c883a4f763cbaf50).
> > There are some fixes I don't want to miss from the 6.7 pull request.
> > There should be minimal change to the VFS tree conflict resolution so
> > the diff should be reusable.
>
> So, why did you not just merge in v6.6-rc7 (or better yet, the branch
> that contains the fix(es) that Linus merged) and then apply your new
> commits on top of that? All the commits that were in the btrfs tree
> have been rebased unchanged.

I don't back merge Linus' branches nor the fixes that I send, that's
against what I understand is the recommended practice. The development
queue gets rebased on top of the rc, in that way it's clean and
eventually drops patches sent independently merged to the master branch.

What you suggest I don't even visualize, like keep my previous frozen
branch on rc5, merge rc7 and then merge some other branch with the
recent fix? Or create another one with just additional patches (there
were like 10)? That looks as if the btrfs tree would be quite busy but
in fact it's not, the linear series makes a lot of things easier.
For example I add Reviewed-by, CC: stable@ or other tags, fix typos or
fix whitespace as long as there's another sync point before the code
freeze.

My workflow has been working well but now there's a huge pile of
conflicting VFS changes that require other trees to effectively stop
taking new patches or require back merges from Linus.

I've assumed that linux-next can deal with rebases and eventual conflict
resolutions stay applicable in some way and that one more sync a week
before merge window is enough time for everybody to sync.

2023-10-24 15:53:33

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: upcoming merge window: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:59:39AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:25:43AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:55:13 +0200 David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have updated my for-next branch again, sorry (top commit 1a4dc97c883a4f763cbaf50).
> > > There are some fixes I don't want to miss from the 6.7 pull request.
> > > There should be minimal change to the VFS tree conflict resolution so
> > > the diff should be reusable.
> >
> > So, why did you not just merge in v6.6-rc7 (or better yet, the branch
> > that contains the fix(es) that Linus merged) and then apply your new
> > commits on top of that? All the commits that were in the btrfs tree
> > have been rebased unchanged.
>
> Please reconsider that and follow Stephen's suggestion. I'm sending pull
> requests this week and it'd be really annoying having to rebase
> vfs.super right before sending them.
>
> We let you carry the required patches in btrfs on your insistence even
> though this effectively blocked two patchsets for a whole cycle

I hope I explained my reasons already under that series, core btrfs
changes should not go via VFS tree.

> and then
> merged in btrfs into vfs.super for that. Rebasing on such short notice
> is really not very nice.

Like said in the my other reply, the amount of VFS changes asks for
stopping taking new patches to btrfs and not continuing the patch
workflow that I've been doing. I understand that the inter-tree
dependencies are never easy so it's about finding some common way and
splitting the work over more releases eventually.

A resync of our branches a week before merge window, when there are no
significant changes on my side does not sound like too short notice, but
you can feel otherwise of course.

> I'm going to wait with the rebase for a bit.

Ok, don't rebase. I'll push to linux-next the previous snapshot and will
find a way how to deliver the new patches.

2023-10-25 00:09:33

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

Hi David,

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 17:32:29 +0200 David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:25:43AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:55:13 +0200 David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have updated my for-next branch again, sorry (top commit 1a4dc97c883a4f763cbaf50).
> > > There are some fixes I don't want to miss from the 6.7 pull request.
> > > There should be minimal change to the VFS tree conflict resolution so
> > > the diff should be reusable.
> >
> > So, why did you not just merge in v6.6-rc7 (or better yet, the branch
> > that contains the fix(es) that Linus merged) and then apply your new
> > commits on top of that? All the commits that were in the btrfs tree
> > have been rebased unchanged.
>
> I don't back merge Linus' branches nor the fixes that I send, that's
> against what I understand is the recommended practice. The development
> queue gets rebased on top of the rc, in that way it's clean and
> eventually drops patches sent independently merged to the master branch.

Please read Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachments:

2023-10-25 13:19:28

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: upcoming merge window: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 05:46:20PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:59:39AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:25:43AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:55:13 +0200 David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have updated my for-next branch again, sorry (top commit 1a4dc97c883a4f763cbaf50).
> > > > There are some fixes I don't want to miss from the 6.7 pull request.
> > > > There should be minimal change to the VFS tree conflict resolution so
> > > > the diff should be reusable.
> > >
> > > So, why did you not just merge in v6.6-rc7 (or better yet, the branch
> > > that contains the fix(es) that Linus merged) and then apply your new
> > > commits on top of that? All the commits that were in the btrfs tree
> > > have been rebased unchanged.
> >
> > Please reconsider that and follow Stephen's suggestion. I'm sending pull
> > requests this week and it'd be really annoying having to rebase
> > vfs.super right before sending them.
> >
> > We let you carry the required patches in btrfs on your insistence even
> > though this effectively blocked two patchsets for a whole cycle
>
> I hope I explained my reasons already under that series, core btrfs
> changes should not go via VFS tree.
>
> > and then
> > merged in btrfs into vfs.super for that. Rebasing on such short notice
> > is really not very nice.
>
> Like said in the my other reply, the amount of VFS changes asks for
> stopping taking new patches to btrfs and not continuing the patch
> workflow that I've been doing. I understand that the inter-tree
> dependencies are never easy so it's about finding some common way and
> splitting the work over more releases eventually.
>
> A resync of our branches a week before merge window, when there are no

Pull requests for VFS and a bunch of other trees are going out the week
before the merge window opens. This has been requested multiple times.
It's mentioned in almost every kernel release mail that pull requests
should go out early.

So you rebasing a week before the merge window means rebasing
right before the pr is sent for us. You might send pull requests later
and are free to do so of course but you made us depend on your tree so
we need some stability. That's why the rebase is problematic here.

> significant changes on my side does not sound like too short notice, but
> you can feel otherwise of course.
>
> > I'm going to wait with the rebase for a bit.
>
> Ok, don't rebase. I'll push to linux-next the previous snapshot and will
> find a way how to deliver the new patches.

Thanks! So I know you have your workflow and that's obviously fine but
rebasing when other major trees depend on your tree is a problem and I
believe Stephen has already linked to our official "Rebasing and
merging" documentation:

"- Do not reparent a tree without a good reason to do so. Just being on a
newer base or avoiding a merge with an upstream repository is not
generally a good reason."

[...]

"A frequent cause of merge-window trouble is when Linus is presented with a
patch series that has clearly been reparented, often to a random commit,
shortly before the pull request was sent. The chances of such a series
having been adequately tested are relatively low - as are the chances of
the pull request being acted upon."

So I'll make sure to point out that we're depending on the btrfs tree
and I have a clear merge commit explaining why we're pulling it in. All
of that would be invalidated if you're rebasing. So not rebasing really
helps us a lot.

I specifically put Linus in Cc so hopefully everyone is aware up front
and there are no unnecessary suprises during the merge window.

2023-10-28 14:10:21