Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 16:26:00 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] test_dummy_encryption fixes and cleanups
Message-ID: <Yn7pCEVAq0V4pcp7@sol.localdomain>
References: <20220501050857.538984-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
 <Yn6zJR2peMo5hIcF@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yn6zJR2peMo5hIcF@mit.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 03:36:05PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 10:08:50PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > We can either take all these patches through the fscrypt tree, or we can
> > take them in multiple cycles as follows:
> > 
> >     1. patch 1 via ext4, patch 2 via f2fs, patch 3-4 via fscrypt
> >     2. patch 5 via ext4, patch 6 via f2fs
> >     3. patch 7 via fscrypt
> > 
> > Ted and Jaegeuk, let me know what you prefer.
> 
> In order to avoid patch conflicts with other patch series, what I'd
> prefer is to take them in multiple cycles.  I can take patch #1 in my
> initial pull request to Linus, and then do a second pull request to
> Linus with patch #5 post -rc1 or -rc2 (depending on when patches #3
> and #4 hit Linus's tree).
> 
> Does that sound good?

That basically sounds fine.  I've just sent out v3 of this series, with the fix
for the memory leak in parse_apply_sb_mount_options() as its own patch.  That
patch can be applied now too, so you can take patches 1-2 of the v3 series in
your initial pull request.

- Eric