linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 0/7] fsdax: introduce fs query to support reflink

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]

Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:46:53 +1000
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@...itsu.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 0/7] fsdax: introduce fs query to support reflink

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:54:59PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:35:02PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Sure, I'm not a maintainer and just the stand-in patch shepherd for
> > a single release. However, being unable to cleanly merge code we
> > need integrated into our local subsystem tree for integration
> > testing because a patch dependency with another subsystem won't gain
> > a stable commit ID until the next merge window is .... distinctly
> > suboptimal.
> 
> Yes.  Which is why we've taken a lot of mm patchs through other trees,
> sometimes specilly crafted for that.  So I guess in this case we'll
> just need to take non-trivial dependencies into the XFS tree, and just
> deal with small merge conflicts for the trivial ones.

OK. As Naoyo has pointed out, the first dependency/conflict Ruan has
listed looks trivial to resolve.

The second dependency, OTOH, is on a new function added in the patch
pointed to. That said, at first glance it looks to be independent of
the first two patches in that series so I might just be able to pull
that one patch in and have that leave us with a working
fsdax+reflink tree.

Regardless, I'll wait to see how much work the updated XFS/DAX
reflink enablement patchset still requires when Ruan posts it before
deciding what to do here.  If it isn't going to be a merge
candidate, what to do with this patchset is moot because there's
little to test without reflink enabled...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com