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: <20201115155355.GR3576660@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20201115214125.GA317@Ryzen-9-3900X.localdomain>
 <20201115233814.GT3576660@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20201115235149.GA252@Ryzen-9-3900X.localdomain>
 <20201116002513.GU3576660@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20201116003416.GA345@Ryzen-9-3900X.localdomain>
 <20201116032942.GV3576660@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20201127162902.GA11665@lst.de>
 <20201208163552.GA15052@lst.de> <CAHk-=wiPeddM90zqyaHzd6g6Cc3NUpg+2my2gX5mR1ydd0ZjNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201208194935.GH3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20201208194935.GH3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:25:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whGUXQzNEfPXiKUVZg-mGQjTC_WNZ0m9FKFoWDDrik85g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] seq_file: add seq_read_iter
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:49 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Said that, it does appear to survive all beating, and it does fix
> a regression introduced in this cycle, so, provided that amount of
> comments in there is OK with you...

Ok, considering Greg's note, I've pulled it. It's early in the last
week, if something comes up we can still fix it.

That said, considering that I think the only use-case was that odd
/proc splice use, and the really special WSL2 thing, and both of those
are verified, it does sound safe to pull.

Famous last words...

Al, since you're around, would you mind looking at the two
DCACHE_DONTCACHE patches too? Honestly, since they seem to be an issue
only for DAX, and only for DAX policy changes, I don't consider them
critical for 5.10, but they've been around for a while now.

         Linus