Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200429140341.13294-1-maco@android.com> <20200429140341.13294-11-maco@android.com>
 <CAB0TPYHwor85-fWKu+OMT-1ys2L7OSqVoReJRzNOMAE0xK+yzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1f3064a9-105f-02bb-6a1a-eb9875d292e3@kernel.dk> <4416f60a-6050-5067-6881-0ee9ef944669@kernel.dk>
 <CAB0TPYHikHc3tTTQcUOOZsYZmqNxGtthpkPX_z6dKgy+V8kovg@mail.gmail.com> <20200513102256.GA2087@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200513102256.GA2087@lst.de>
From:   Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 15:49:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAB0TPYHBJTykz-x1nHPYK+ELzOhFu-7RgvKbdorqfbqmGcFqgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] loop: Add LOOP_CONFIGURE ioctl
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Narayan Kamath <narayan@google.com>,
        Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>, kernel-team@android.com,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@google.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@wdc.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:22 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:07:43AM +0200, Martijn Coenen wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:30 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> > > > Looks acceptable to me, but I'm getting a failure applying it to
> > > > for-5.8/drivers on this patch:
> > > >
> > > > Applying: loop: Refactor loop_set_status() size calculation
> > > >
> > > > So you'll probably want to respin on the right branch.
> >
> > This series depends on a separate bugfix I sent to LKML earlier - see
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/31/755 . I mentioned it in [00/10] of
> > this series, but perhaps I should have just included that patch.
> >
> > I just verified that patch + this series still applies cleanly on your
> > for-5.8/drivers tree, but if you prefer I send a v5 with that patch
> > going first let me know.
>
> You probably want to resend with the fix includes as the first patch.
> And drop the truncation check now that we figured out that we don't
> actually need it.

Just sent v5, thanks!

Martijn