linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] fscache rewrite -- please drop for now

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: <20200827161824.GC31016@nautica>
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:18:24 +0200
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@...hat.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        linux-cachefs@...hat.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] fscache rewrite -- please drop for now

David Howells wrote on Thu, Aug 27, 2020:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> 
> > FYI, a giant rewrite dropping support for existing consumer is always
> > rather awkward.  Is there any way you could pre-stage some infrastructure
> > changes, and then do a temporary fscache2, which could then be renamed
> > back to fscache once everyone switched over?
> 
> That's a bit tricky.  There are three points that would have to be shared: the
> userspace miscdev interface, the backing filesystem and the single index tree.
> 
> It's probably easier to just have a go at converting 9P and cifs.  Making the
> old and new APIs share would be a fairly hefty undertaking in its own right.

While I agree something incremental is probably better, I have some free
time over the next few weeks so will take a shot at 9p; it's definitely
going to be easier.


Should I submit patches to you or wait until Linus merges it next cycle
and send them directly?

I see Jeff's ceph patches are still in his tree's ceph-fscache-iter
branch and I don't see them anywhere in your tree.

-- 
Dominique