Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: reduce ioctl stack usage

[Christian Brauner]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:00:15 +0800 Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On 4/18/23 8:56 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 05:37:06PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
> > >> Andrew picked ocfs2 patches into -mm tree before.
> > > Yup and that's fine obviously, but this belongs to fs/ and we're aiming
> > > to take fs/ stuff through the dedicated fs trees going forward.
> > 
> > Either is fine for me.
> > Hi Andrew, what's your opinion?
> 
> I've been wrangling ocfs2 for over a decade and this is the first I've
> heard of this proposal.
> 
> Who is "we", above?  What was their reasoning?
> 
> Who will be responsible for ocfs2 patches?  What will be their workflow
> and review and test processes?
> 
> Overall, what benefit does this proposal offer the ocfs2 project?

I think I might not have communicated as clearly as I should have.
Simply because I naively assumed that this is unproblematic.

By "we" I mean people responsible for "fs/" which now happens to also
include me. So the goal of this is for patches falling under fs/ to get
picked up more quickly and broadly and share the maintenance burden.

Since ocfs2 falls under fs/ it felt pretty straightforward that it
should go via one of the fs/ trees and thus I picked it up and didn't
bat an eye that it might somehow bother you.

For us as in "fs/" it's nicer because it means if we do fs wide changes
we'll reduce chances of merge conflicts.