[Nouveau] [PATCH 16/25] device-dax: use the dev_pagemap internal refcount

[Dan Williams]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:08 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:02 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:27:44AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > The functionality is identical to the one currently open coded in
> > > > > device-dax.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny at intel.com>
> > > > >  drivers/dax/dax-private.h |  4 ----
> > > > >  drivers/dax/device.c      | 43 ---------------------------------------
> > > > >  2 files changed, 47 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > DanW: I think this series has reached enough review, did you want
> > > > to ack/test any further?
> > > >
> > > > This needs to land in hmm.git soon to make the merge window.
> > >
> > > I was awaiting a decision about resolving the collision with Ira's
> > > patch before testing the final result again [1]. You can go ahead and
> > > add my reviewed-by for the series, but my tested-by should be on the
> > > final state of the series.
> >
> > The conflict looks OK to me, I think we can let Andrew and Linus
> > resolve it.
> >
>
> Andrew's tree effectively always rebases since it's a quilt series.
> I'd recommend pulling Ira's patch out of -mm and applying it with the
> rest of hmm reworks. Any other git tree I'd agree with just doing the
> late conflict resolution, but I'm not clear on what's the best
> practice when conflicting with -mm.

Regardless the patch is buggy. If you want to do the conflict
resolution it should be because the DEVICE_PUBLIC removal effectively
does the same fix otherwise we're knowingly leaving a broken point in
the history.