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: <YIdByy4WJcXTN7Wy@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <YIdByy4WJcXTN7Wy@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:31:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whNdEKs-LoF9DKYW8k5Eg2rPjqqWf047TxAY3+v4W=iRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] fileattr series from Miklos
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:42 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
>         The branch is straight from Miklos' tree (it's #fileattr_v6 there),
> sat merged into vfs.git #for-next for a while.  Not sure what's the normal
> way to do pull requests in situations like that - do you prefer a reference
> to my tree (as below) or to mszeredi/vfs.git?

This is fine. The only downside here is that there was no signed tag,
which I would have preferred - either from you or from Milkos.

We've had this a couple of times before, and I've started trying to
"document" it with a "Pull X from Y via Z" thing. See for example

   git show 836d7f0572ca 70cd33d34c60

which is a similar kind of thing where Borislav just forwarded Ard's
work (and it has happened in the past a couple of times without those
kinds of notices).

Btw, unrelated to that, this pull request got a conflict with

  64708539cd23 ("btrfs: use btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock inode
lock helpers")

which I think I sorted out correctly (the "inode_lock()" is now done
by the VFS layer for the fileattr things, and the btrfs use of
"btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock" ended up being undone). But just
to be safe I'm cc'ing the btrfs people involved. Please double-check
that I didn't screw something up.

(Note: it doesn't show up as a conflict in the merge itself, because
each piece was a straight "take the case from one side or the other",
and in this case "take it from the fileattr" side meant that the
inode_[un]lock -> btrfs_inode_[un]lock conversion for the fileattr
cases just went away).

                 Linus