Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 03:56:37 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: vfs / overlayfs conflict resolution for linux-next
Message-ID: <20180718025636.GA26175@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180711021136.GN30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180711022206.12571-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFxc7M9g+jqVnMHAsK350Ty1tQ9AghuJhBug+FPA6=XQrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180711152555.GR30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180711161540.GS30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180712124326.GA19272@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFwyOHvwV4qkmM1kRYQ+4brWbLSHaXE8GPV41u5Sj-AG4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180712155337.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180712155337.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:05:26AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:43 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > A question regarding the customs in such situations - are previous
> > > Reviewed-by/Acked-by normally kept across rebases like that?
> > 
> > Yeah, unless there were big changes, keep the reviewed/acked-by lines.
> > 
> > Otherwise you'd never be able to handle different people giving
> > slightly different feedback about separate issues.
> 
> OK...  Miklos, I've pushed #ovl-candidate, with equivalent of the beginning
> of your branch.  I'm *not* saying that I've no remaining issues
> with your series - this is just how I'd prefer to resolve that group
> of conflicts.
> 
> Everything past "vfs: simplify dentry_open()" could live on top of that
> one, or its equivalent.
> 
> I'm going to put #work-open3 into -next, let's figure out what to do with
> the conflicts; what I can promise is never-rebased status for #for-ovl
> (the beginning of #work-open3 merged into #ovl-candidate).

... and now it even builds.  Said that, I would really like to hear something
from you - I can duplicate the entire overlayfs-next and merge it into
my #for-next and ask Steven to use that instead of your tree, but I very
much dislike going over your head like that.

I realize that you'd been away for a while and probably are digging yourself
from under the piles of mail, but it's getting late in the cycle and I want
to get #for-next into reasonably sane shape.  Please, look through that
thing and respond.