On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 05:32:01PM GMT, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 04:20, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstr...@linux.dev> > wrote: > > > > - rhashtable conversion for vfs inodes > > - rcu_pending, btree key cache conversion > > + nocow deadlock fix > > + fix for new rebalance_work accounting > > I'd have preferred to get a proper list. I edited something together. > > > fs/super.c: improve get_tree() error message > > Ugh. Please use '%d' instead of '%i'. Yes, yes, we use both, because > some people seem to think that 'i' makes more sense. but %d is > *hugely* more common by over an order of magnitude, and '%i' only > makes sense for sscanf (and then has magic properties that it does > *NOT* have on output). > > I've pulled this, but reacted to it because it was to generic vfs code.
The patch to vfs_get_tree() has never been sent to the VFS maintainers and it has never been on any mailing list (at least not on fsdevel and not on bcachefs ml as well from lore.kernel.org). Yes, this is a minor change in this case but it's still not ok to just include patches in a pull request that have never been on any list and haven't seen by the maintainers. This isn't the first time. So please, I want to see all patches that touch VFS generic code on fsdevel with the maintainers Cced.
