[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201203024504.GA1563847@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 18:45:04 -0800
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Xiaoli Feng <xifeng@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] uapi: fix statx attribute value overlap for DAX &
MOUNT_ROOT
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 12:42:08PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:16 PM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > This will force a change to xfstests at a minimum. And I do know of users who
> > have been using this value. But I have gotten inquires about using the feature
> > so there are users out there.
>
> If it's only a few tests that fail, I wouldn't worry about it, and the
> tests should just be updated.
Done[1]
>
> But if there are real user concerns, we may need to have some kind of
> compat code. Because of the whole "no regressions" thing.
>
> What would the typical failure cases be in practice?
The failure will be a user not seeing their file operating in DAX mode when
they expect it to.
I discussed this with Dan Williams today. He and I agreed the flag is new
enough that we don't think users have any released code to the API just yet.
So I think we will be ok.
Also, after learning what the other flag was for I agree with Christoph that
the impact is going to be minimal since users are not typically operating on
the root inode.
So I think we are ok with just making the change and getting it into stable
quickly.
Thanks,
Ira
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201202214629.1563760-1-ira.weiny@intel.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists