On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:33:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

quoted

On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Joel,

quoted

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
[off-list ref] wrote:  

quoted

A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
Andy [2].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181111173650.GA256781@google.com/ (local)
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/69CE06CC-E47C-4992-848A-66EB23EE6C74@amacapital.net/ (local)

Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")  

What tree is that commit in?  Can we not just fold this in?  

It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history?

Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him.

Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed
tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only
barely a git tree.

I wouldn't go so far to call it nonsense. It was a working patch, it just did
things differently. Your help with improving the patch is much appreciated.

I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with
the original, then I can do that and send another patch.

- Joel