On 07/25/2018 05:03 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:36:21 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 07:28:14AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Commits
>>>
>>> 890e537e2b42 ("filesystem-dax: Introduce dax_lock_mapping_entry()")
>>> aaf149902c79 ("filesystem-dax: Set page->index")
>>>
>>> are missing a Signed-off-by from their committers.
>>
>> Oh, hah. I assume this is an automated email?
>
> Well, semi-automatic :-)
>
>> These two commits I cherry-picked from the nvdimm tree so that XArray can
>> be rebased on top of it. Is there some other way I should be doing this,
>> like rebasing on top of the nvdimm tree?
>
> Ideally, the nvdimm tree would have just those two commits in a branch
> that you could merge (so that you both have the same commits (as
> opposed to patches)) that way these changes cannot cause conflicts when
> the files are further modifed in either tree. Alternatively, if you do
> have to cherry-pick them, then you need to add your Signed-off-by to
> the copy that you commit.
>
> As things are now, you could merge commit
>
> c2a7d2a11552 ("filesystem-dax: Introduce dax_lock_mapping_entry()")
>
> from the nvdimm tree into your tree before the conflicting commits in
> your tree (or just rebase your tree on top of that commit). You need
> to make sure that Dan and/or Dave (cc'd) will never rebase that part of
> their tree. Also, you will pick up some other commits (which may not
> be a problem for you).
>
I have all the acks I need for that branch for Dan's patches. So that
branch shouldn't change anymore AFAIK.
