On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 10:26:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 11:55:30 +1100 Alistair Popple [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The remainder are more -mm focussed. However they do depend on the fs/dax
cleanups in the first half so the trick would be making sure Andrew only takes
them if the nvdimm.git changes have made it into -next. I'm happy with either
approach, so let me know if I should split the series or not.

My inclination is to put it all into the nvdimm tree, with appropriate
MM developer acks.

But I'm having difficulty determining how practical that is because the
v3 series is almost a month old so my test merging was quite ugly.

Perhaps you could prepare a new-doesn't-need-to-be-final version for
people to look at and to aid with this head-scratching?

I have just sent a new-maybe-almost-final v4 rebased on top of next-20241216 to
help with the head-scratching. I haven't yet done extensive build tests or a full
xfs-test run on it yet because it sounded better to get it out sooner. So no doubt
the kernel build bot will find some fat finger of mine somewhere :-)

That said the rebase wasn't awful so let me know if it should be rebased on a
different tree.

 - Alistair