Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:48:31 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org,
        djwong@kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com, sandeen@redhat.com,
        willy@infradead.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, tytso@mit.edu,
        bfoster@redhat.com, jack@suse.cz, andreas.gruenbacher@gmail.com,
        brauner@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs
Message-ID: <202307121241.8295B924F@keescook>
References: <20230626214656.hcp4puionmtoloat@moria.home.lan>
 <20230706155602.mnhsylo3pnief2of@moria.home.lan>
 <20230712025459.dbzcjtkb4zem4pdn@moria.home.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230712025459.dbzcjtkb4zem4pdn@moria.home.lan>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 10:54:59PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>  - Prereq patch series has been pruned down a bit more; also Mike
>    Snitzer suggested putting those patches in their own branch:
> 
>    https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git/log/?h=bcachefs-prereqs
> 
>    "iov_iter: copy_folio_from_iter_atomic()" was dropped and replaced
>    with willy's "iov_iter: Handle compound highmem pages in
>    copy_page_from_iter_atomic()"; he said he'd try to send this for -rc4
>    since it's technically a bug fix; in the meantime, it'll be getting
>    more testing from my users.
> 
>    The two lockdep patches have been dropped for now; the
>    bcachefs-for-upstream branch is switched back to
>    lockdep_set_novalidate_class() for btree node locks. 
> 
>    six locks, mean and variance have been moved into fs/bcachefs/ for
>    now; this means there's a new prereq patch to export
>    osq_(lock|unlock)
> 
>    The remaining prereq patches are pretty trivial, with the exception
>    of "block: Don't block on s_umount from __invalidate_super()". I
>    would like to get a reviewed-by for that patch, and it wouldn't hurt
>    for others.
> 
>    previously posting:
>    https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bcachefs/20230509165657.1735798-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev/T/#m34397a4d39f5988cc0b635e29f70a6170927746f

Can you send these prereqs out again, with maintainers CCed
appropriately? (I think some feedback from the prior revision needs to
be addressed first, though. For example, __flatten already exists, etc.)

-- 
Kees Cook