On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 16:51, JeffleXu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 12/14/21 6:17 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 19:03, Vivek Goyal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:54:20AM +0800, JeffleXu wrote: > >>> Hi Vivek, > >>> > >>> Besides, I'd like to know that, to make the per inode DAX feature merged > >>> into v5.17, shall the patches for virtiofsd also be ready during the > >>> merge window? > >> > >> I think having virtiofsd patches ready is not a strict requirement to > >> merge kernel patches. I will provide my ack for the kernel patches. > >> After that it is up to the Miklos to accept or reject those patches. > > > > Pushed to fuse.git#for-next. > > > > The user API needed porting, the userspace part will have to take that > > into account. The only other change I did was replace the !! > > construct with a (bool) cast. > > > Hi, what do you mean by 'The user API needed porting'? Do you mean this > patch set for virtiofsd?
What I meant is that the FUSE_HAS_INODE_DAX value had to be changed due to already pushed changes. So any userspace code relying on the old value in the original patchset would no longer work. Thanks, Miklos _______________________________________________ Virtio-fs mailing list [email protected] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
