[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220511014818.GE1098723@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 11:48:18 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@...itsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
hch@...radead.org, jane.chu@...cle.com, rgoldwyn@...e.de,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, willy@...radead.org,
naoya.horiguchi@....com, linmiaohe@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSETS] v14 fsdax-rmap + v11 fsdax-reflink
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 05:03:52PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 10:36:06PM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> > This is a combination of two patchsets:
> > 1.fsdax-rmap: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20220419045045.1664996-1-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com/
> > 2.fsdax-reflink: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20210928062311.4012070-1-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com/
> >
> > Changes since v13 of fsdax-rmap:
> > 1. Fixed mistakes during rebasing code to latest next-
> > 2. Rebased to next-20220504
> >
> > Changes since v10 of fsdax-reflink:
> > 1. Rebased to next-20220504 and fsdax-rmap
> > 2. Dropped a needless cleanup patch: 'fsdax: Convert dax_iomap_zero to
> > iter model'
> > 3. Fixed many conflicts during rebasing
> > 4. Fixed a dedupe bug in Patch 05: the actuall length to compare could be
> > shorter than smap->length or dmap->length.
> > PS: There are many changes during rebasing. I think it's better to
> > review again.
> >
> > ==
> > Shiyang Ruan (14):
> > fsdax-rmap:
> > dax: Introduce holder for dax_device
> > mm: factor helpers for memory_failure_dev_pagemap
> > pagemap,pmem: Introduce ->memory_failure()
> > fsdax: Introduce dax_lock_mapping_entry()
> > mm: Introduce mf_dax_kill_procs() for fsdax case
>
> Hmm. This patchset touches at least the dax, pagecache, and xfs
> subsystems. Assuming it's too late for 5.19, how should we stage this
> for 5.20?
Yeah, it's past my "last date for this merge cycle" which was
-rc6. I expected stuff might slip a little - as it has with the LARP
code - but I don't have the time and bandwidth to start working
on merging another feature from scratch before the merge window
comes around.
Getting the dax+reflink stuff in this cycle was always an optimistic
stretch, but I wanted to try so that there was no doubt it would be
ready for merge in the next cycle...
> I could just add the entire series to iomap-5.20-merge and base the
> xfs-5.20-merge off of that? But I'm not sure what else might be landing
> in the other subsystems, so I'm open to input.
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...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists