From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/22] fs: enhanced writeback error reporting with
 errseq_t (pile #1)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:25:07 +1000
Message-ID: <20170620092507.3998e728@canb.auug.org.au>
References: <20170616193427.13955-1-jlayton@redhat.com>
        <1497889426.4654.7.camel@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        tytso@mit.edu, axboe@kernel.dk, mawilcox@microsoft.com,
        ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>,
        Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1497889426.4654.7.camel@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org

Hi Jeff,

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:23:46 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> If there are no major objections to this set, I'd like to have
> linux-next start picking it up to get some wider testing. What's the
> right vehicle for this, given that it touches stuff all over the tree?
> 
> I can see 3 potential options:
> 
> 1) I could just pull these into the branch that Stephen is already
> picking up for file-locks in my tree
> 
> 2) I could put them into a new branch, and have Stephen pull that one in
> addition to the file-locks branch
> 
> 3) It could go in via someone else's tree entirely (Andrew or Al's
> maybe?)
> 
> I'm fine with any of these. Anyone have thoughts?

Given that this is a one off development, either 1 or 3 (in Al's tree)
would be fine.  2 is a possibility (but people forget to ask me to
remove one shot trees :-()

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell