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;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <YUJcN/dqa8f4R9w0@mit.edu>
References: <YUJcN/dqa8f4R9w0@mit.edu> <YUIwgGzBqX6ZiGgk@mit.edu> <f7b70227bac9a684320068b362d28fcade6b65b9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <YUI5bk/94yHPZIqJ@mit.edu> <17242A0C-3613-41BB-84E4-2617A182216E@fb.com> <f066615c0e2c6fe990fa5c19dd1c17d649bcb03a.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "ksummit@lists.linux.dev" <ksummit@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Folios as a potential Kernel/Maintainers Summit topic?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1763246.1631800271.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:51:11 +0100
Message-ID: <1763247.1631800271@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> > My reading of the email threads is that they're iterating to an actual
> > conclusion (I admit, I'm surprised) ... or at least the disagreements
> > are getting less.  Since the merge window closed this is now a 5.16
> > thing, so there's no huge urgency to getting it resolved next week.
> 
> My read was that it was more that people were just getting exhausted,
> and not necessarily that folks were converging.

The problem, from where I sit, is that I'd started rebasing my stuff on top of
Willy's patches and making use of them in the expectation that they were
likely to go in - and I think other people might have been doing that too
based on some of the comments.

However, that's all been thrown up in the air.  Not only did they not get
merged in this window, it's not currently looking certain that they'd get
merged in the next window either.

So what do I do?  Do I defoliate my patches - which then risks merge conflicts
with the folio patches?  Or do I stick with the foliation and hope that
Willy's goes in next time?

Some guidance as to what's likely to happen to the folio patches would be
really appreciated!

David