On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 05:11:14PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 02:43:43PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 05:40:46AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > Most of this pile is basically an attempt to see how well do > > > cleanup.h-style mechanisms apply in mount handling. That stuff lives in > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git #work.mount > > > Rebased to -rc3 (used to be a bit past -rc2, branched at mount fixes merge) > > > Individual patches in followups. > > > > > > Please, help with review and testing. It seems to survive the > > > local beating and code generation seems to be OK, but more testing > > > would be a good thing and I would really like to see comments on that > > > stuff. > > > > Btw, I just realized that basically none of your commits have any lore > > links in them. That kinda sucks because I very very often just look at a > > commit and then use the link to jump to the mailing list discussion for > > more context about a change and how it came about. > > > > So pretty please can you start adding lore links to your commits when > > applying if it's not fucking up your workflow too much? > > Links to what, at the first posting? Confused... I mean, this _is_ what I hope would be a discussion of that stuff - that's what request for comments stands for, after all. How is that supposed to work? Going back through the queue and slapping lore links at the same time as the reviewed-by etc. are applied? I honestly have no idea what practice do you have in mind - ~95% of the time I'm sitting in nvi - it serves as IDE for me; mutt takes a large part of the rest. Browser is something that gets used occasionally when I have to...
