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:   Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:50:40 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XArray for 4.19
Message-ID: <20180822025040.GA12244@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20180813161357.GB1199@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CA+55aFxFjAmrFpwQmEHCthHOzgidCKnod+cNDEE+3Spu9o1s3w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxFjAmrFpwQmEHCthHOzgidCKnod+cNDEE+3Spu9o1s3w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 07:09:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:14 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Please consider pulling the XArray patch set.
> 
> So this merge window has been horrible, but I was just about to start
> looking at it.
> 
> And no. I'm not going to pull this.
> 
> For some unfathomable reason, you have based it on the libnvdimm tree.
> I don't understand at all wjhy you did that.

I said in the pull request ...

  There are two conflicts I wanted to flag; the first is against the
  linux-nvdimm tree.  I rebased on top of one of the branches that went
  into that tree, so if you pull my tree before linux-nvdimm, you'll get
  fifteen commits I've had no involvement with.

Dan asked me to do that so that his commit (which I had no involvement
with) would be easier to backport.  At the time I thought this was a
reasonable request; I know this API change is disruptive and I wanted
to accommodate that.  I didn't know his patch was "complete garbage";
I didn't review it.

So, should I have based just on your tree and sent you a description of
what a resolved conflict should look like?

> And since I won't be merging this, I clearly won't be merging your
> other pull request that depended on this either.

I can yank most of the patches (all but the last two, iirc) out of the
IDA patchset and submit those as a separate pull request.  Would that
be acceptable?  I'm really struggling to juggle all the pieces here to
get them merged.