[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4ip6N6jvdb3LRjPnVr6xaFjiVg1OCE95pu9RiMG5_VNPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 21:20:57 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
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>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>, linmiaohe@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSETS] v14 fsdax-rmap + v11 fsdax-reflink
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:29 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 18:55:50 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > > It'll need to be a stable branch somewhere, but I don't think it
> > > really matters where al long as it's merged into the xfs for-next
> > > tree so it gets filesystem test coverage...
> >
> > So how about let the notify_failure() bits go through -mm this cycle,
> > if Andrew will have it, and then the reflnk work has a clean v5.19-rc1
> > baseline to build from?
>
> What are we referring to here? I think a minimal thing would be the
> memremap.h and memory-failure.c changes from
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220508143620.1775214-4-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com ?
Latest is here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220508143620.1775214-1-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com/
> Sure, I can scoot that into 5.19-rc1 if you think that's best. It
> would probably be straining things to slip it into 5.19.
Hmm, if it's straining things and XFS will also target v5.20 I think
the best course for all involved is just wait. Let some of the current
conflicts in -mm land in v5.19 and then I can merge the DAX baseline
and publish a stable branch for XFS and BTRFS to build upon for v5.20.
> The use of EOPNOTSUPP is a bit suspect, btw. It *sounds* like the
> right thing, but it's a networking errno. I suppose livable with if it
> never escapes the kernel, but if it can get back to userspace then a
> user would be justified in wondering how the heck a filesystem
> operation generated a networking errno?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists