Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 15:36:05 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
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: <Yn6zJR2peMo5hIcF@mit.edu>
References: <20220501050857.538984-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220501050857.538984-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

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?

						- Ted