linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET v2 btrfs/for-next] blkcg, btrfs: fix cgroup writeback support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190618144517.GI657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:45:17 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     dsterba@...e.cz, dsterba@...e.com, clm@...com,
        josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk, jack@...e.cz,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v2 btrfs/for-next] blkcg, btrfs: fix cgroup writeback
 support

Hello, David.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:54:42PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> However, as it's rc5, I'm not at all comfortable to add this patchset to
> 5.3 queue, the changes seem to be intrusive and redoing bio submission
> path is something that will affect all workloads. I did quick tests on
> fstests (without cgruops enabled) and this was fine, but that's the
> minimum that must work. Wider range of workloads would be needed, I can
> do that with mmtests, but all of that means that 5.3 is infeasible.

Sure thing.  These aren't urgent in any way.

> So this opens more possibilites regarding the patchset routing. Both
> parts can go separately through their usual trees.

Yeah, that sounds great too.  Let's wait for Jens's review and decide
how to route the patches.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun