[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <gsxwuko2bmajg7wshcxx26p5afmzi6hpvc5u6oecp5slnybdr6@fdky2ksbpvki>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 22:54:07 +0100
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
mcgrof@...nel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
kbusch@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org, chandan.babu@...cle.com, p.raghav@...sung.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de, willy@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 13/14] xfs: add an experimental CONFIG_XFS_LBS option
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:19:23AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:37:12AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
> >
> > Add an experimental CONFIG_XFS_LBS option to enable LBS support in XFS.
> > Retain the ASSERT for PAGE_SHIFT if CONFIG_XFS_LBS is not enabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
>
> NAK.
>
> There it no reason for this existing - the same code is run
> regardless of the state of this config variable just with a
> difference in min folio order. All it does is increase the test
> matrix arbitrarily - now we have two kernel configs we have to test
> and there's no good reason for doing that.
I did not have this CONFIG in the first round but I thought it might
help retain the existing behaviour until we deem the feature stable.
But I get your point. So we remove this CONFIG and just have an
experimental warning during mount when people are using the LBS support?
>
> -Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists