linux-kernel - Re: Folios for 5.15 request - Was: re: Folio discussion recap -

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: <A8B68BA5-E90E-4AFF-A14A-211BBC4CDECE@fb.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:56:16 +0000
From:   Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Folios for 5.15 request - Was: re: Folio discussion recap -


> On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:46:04AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:08:58AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 05:22:54PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>>> - it's become apparent that there haven't been any real objections to the code
>>>>   that was queued up for 5.15. There _are_ very real discussions and points of
>>>>   contention still to be decided and resolved for the work beyond file backed
>>>>   pages, but those discussions were what derailed the more modest, and more
>>>>   badly needed, work that affects everyone in filesystem land
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, I think this is a result of me wanting to discuss a way
>>> forward rather than a way back.
>>> 
>>> To clarify: I do very much object to the code as currently queued up,
>>> and not just to a vague future direction.
>>> 
>>> The patches add and convert a lot of complicated code to provision for
>>> a future we do not agree on. The indirections it adds, and the hybrid
>>> state it leaves the tree in, make it directly more difficult to work
>>> with and understand the MM code base. Stuff that isn't needed for
>>> exposing folios to the filesystems.
>>> 
>>> As Willy has repeatedly expressed a take-it-or-leave-it attitude in
>>> response to my feedback, I'm not excited about merging this now and
>>> potentially leaving quite a bit of cleanup work to others if the
>>> downstream discussion don't go to his liking.
> 
> We're at a take-it-or-leave-it point for this pull request.  The time
> for discussion was *MONTHS* ago.
> 

I’ll admit I’m not impartial, but my fundamental goal is moving the patches forward.  Given folios will need long term maintenance, engagement, and iteration throughout mm/, take-it-or-leave-it pulls seem like a recipe for future conflict, and more importantly, bugs.

I’d much rather work it out now.

-chris