On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:20:32PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:04 PM Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/xfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/xfs-ioctl-table
> > >
> > > Lots to like in that handful of patches. :)
> > >
> > > It can easily go before or after Arnd's patch, and the merge
> > > conflict either way would be minor, so I'm not really fussed either
> > > way this gets sorted out...
> >
> > The other thing we could do is to just pick the two important ones:
> >
> > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/xfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/xfs-ioctl-table-5.3
> >
> > and throw that into Arnds series, or even 5.3, and then defer the
> > table thing until later.
> 
> If we can have your "xfs: fall back to native ioctls for unhandled compat
> ones" in 5.3, that would be ideal from my side, then I can just drop the
> corresponding patch from my series and have the rest merged for 5.4.
> 
> The compat_ptr addition is independent of my series, I just added it
> because I noticed it was missing, so we can merged that through
> the xfs tree along with your other changes, either for 5.3 or 5.4.

Er... do the two patches in the -5.3 branch actually fix something
that's broken?  I sense s390 is missing a pointer sanitization check or
something...?

--D

>      Arnd

Reply via email to