Message ID | 20240721151013.b9b331ce79f5f60c54c69636@linux-foundation.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] non-MM updates for 6.11-rc1 | expand |
On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 at 15:10, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > - In the series "treewide: Refactor heap related implementation", > Kuan-Wei Chiu has significantly reworked the min_heap library code and > has taught bcachefs to use the new more generic implementation. Bah. I think the users should probably have been converted in their own trees, instead of having this thing that caused a somewhat nasty conflict. I think I sorted it out correctly, but I'm not seeing why the bcachefs conversion was done outside the bcachefs tree. (Ok, it's not like the conflict was all that nasty, really. It's more that conflicts in this _kind_ of code is a bit nasty). As it is, I do see the Ack from Kent, but I'm going to ask him to also double-check my merge. I see what happened in linux-next, but that state also seems different from my tree (at a minimum, Kent also moved the tiemr_lock around a bit too). Anyway.. The conflict resolution looks sane to me and doesn't seem fundamentally complex, but (a) mistakes happen and (b) it does seem like this whole heap conversion could have happened in the bcachefs tree. Kent, mind checking that I didn't do something horribly horribly bad? Linus
The pull request you sent on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 15:10:13 -0700:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm tags/mm-nonmm-stable-2024-07-21-15-07
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/527eff227d4321c6ea453db1083bc4fdd4d3a3e8
Thank you!
On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 06:12:37PM GMT, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 at 15:10, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > - In the series "treewide: Refactor heap related implementation", > > Kuan-Wei Chiu has significantly reworked the min_heap library code and > > has taught bcachefs to use the new more generic implementation. > > Bah. I think the users should probably have been converted in their > own trees, instead of having this thing that caused a somewhat nasty > conflict. > > I think I sorted it out correctly, but I'm not seeing why the bcachefs > conversion was done outside the bcachefs tree. Ergh, this turned out awkward. I originally planning on sending you that series, but Andrew picked it up - and splitting the bcachefs patches out from the rest of the series would made it awkward to keep track of, but perhaps that was justified here. I think this must have been missed in -next as well because the clock.c changes came late (there was a bug that was uncovered by some out of tree code, and I'm still sitting on that patch but the bug was worth fixing). > Kent, mind checking that I didn't do something horribly horribly bad? Looks good, and nothing's immediately exploding when I test it, kasan included, so I think we're good.