Re: iomap-folio & nvdimm merge

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:41:15AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >     iomap: Inline __iomap_zero_iter into its caller
> > 
> >     To make the merge easier, replicate the inlining of __iomap_zero_iter()
> >     into iomap_zero_iter() that is currently in the nvdimm tree.
> > 
> >     Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Looks like a reasonable function promotion to me...
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks, applied that to the commit.

> > Shall I push out a version of this patch series which includes the
> > "iomap: Inline __iomap_zero_iter into its caller" patch I pasted above?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I've been distracted for months with first a Huge Customer Escalation
> and now a <embargoed>, which means that I've been and continue to be
> very distracted.  I /think/ there are no other iomap patches being
> proposed for inclusion -- Andreas' patches were applied as fixes during
> 5.16-rc, Christoph's DAX refactoring is now in the nvdimm tree, and that
> leaves Matthew's folios refactoring.
> 
> So seeing as (I think?) there are no other iomap patches for 5.17, if
> Matthew wants to add his branch to for-next and push directly to Linus
> (rather than pushing to me to push the exact same branch to Linus) I
> think that would be ... better than letting it block on me.  IIRC I've
> RVB'd everything in the folios branch. :(
> 
> FWIW I ran the 5.17e branch through my fstests cloud and nothing fell
> out, so I think it's in good enough shape to merge to for-next.

Glad to hear it passed that thorough testing.  Stephen, please pick
up a new tree (hopefully just temporarily until Darrick can swim to
the surface):

 git://git.infradead.org/users/willy/linux.git folio-iomap

Hopefully the previous message will give you enough context for
the merge conflict resolution.