[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOi1vP-rQLhu=JF1H2Tmz21tM+FhTPYuKYjx05iSijv_QckVpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:03:20 +0200
From: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL afs: Development for 5.4
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:55 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49:22AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > However, I was close to unpulling it again. It has a merge commit with
> > > > this merge message:
> > > >
> > > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'net/master' into afs-next
> > > >
> > > > and that simply is not acceptable.
> > >
> > > Apologies - I meant to rebase that away. There was a bug fix to rxrpc in
> > > net/master that didn't get pulled into your tree until Saturday.
> >
> > Actually, waiting for all outstanding fixes to get merged and then rebasing
> > might not be the right thing here. The problem is that there are fixes in
> > both trees: afs fixes go directly into yours whereas rxrpc fixes go via
> > networking and I would prefer to base my patches on both of them for testing
> > purposes. What's the preferred method for dealing with that? Base on a merge
> > of the lastest of those fixes in each tree?
>
> Why is it organised this way? I mean, yes, technically, rxrpc is a
> generic layer-6 protocol that any blah blah blah, but in practice no
> other user has come up in the last 37 years, so why bother pretending
> one is going to? Just git mv net/rxrpc fs/afs/ and merge everything
> through your tree.
>
> I feel similarly about net/9p, net/sunrpc and net/ceph. Every filesystem
> comes with its own presentation layer; nobody reuses an existing one.
> Just stop pretending they're separate components.
net/ceph is also being used by drivers/block/rbd.c. net/ceph was split
out of fs/ceph when rbd was introduced. We continued to manage them in
a single ceph-client.git tree though.
Thanks,
Ilya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists