futher decouple DAX from block devices

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 08:42:29AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:52 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr at canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:46:31 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > My merge resolution is here [1]. Christoph, please have a look. The
> > > rebase and the merge result are both passing my test and I'm now going
> > > to review the individual patches. However, while I do that and collect
> > > acks from DM and EROFS folks, I want to give Stephen a heads up that
> > > this is coming. Primarily I want to see if someone sees a better
> > > strategy to merge this, please let me know, but if not I plan to walk
> > > Stephen and Linus through the resolution.
> >
> > It doesn't look to bad to me (however it is a bit late in the cycle :-(
> > ).  Once you are happy, just put it in your tree (some of the conflicts
> > are against the current -rc3 based version of your tree anyway) and I
> > will cope with it on Monday.
> 
> Christoph, Darrick, Shiyang,
> 
> I'm losing my nerve to try to jam this into v5.16 this late in the
> cycle.

Always a solid choice to hold off for a little more testing and a little
less anxiety. :)

I don't usually accept new code patches for iomap after rc4 anyway.

> I do want to get dax+reflink squared away as soon as possible,
> but that looks like something that needs to build on top of a
> v5.16-rc1 at this point. If Linus does a -rc8 then maybe it would have
> enough soak time, but otherwise I want to take the time to collect the
> acks and queue up some more follow-on cleanups to prepare for
> block-less-dax.

I think that hwpoison-calls-xfs-rmap patchset is a prerequisite for
dax+reflink anyway, right?  /me had concluded both were 5.17 things.

--D