linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 6.11

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: <CAHk-=wgw9uyrpi+qL28Ee650p7jaXEMjUoRzXBymraoENDMt6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:21:17 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 6.11

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 at 11:12, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com> wrote:
>
> There's a merge conflict caused by the latency fixes from last week in
> extent_map.c:btrfs_scan_inode(), related commits 4e660ca3a98d931809734
> and b3ebb9b7e92a928344a. Resolved in branch for-6.11-merged and that's
> been in linux-next for a few days.

Oh, and I notice that my resolution is slightly different, but looks
like the actual code is equivalent.

I kept the "q" logic that had been introduced by commit 4e660ca3a98d
("btrfs: use a regular rb_root instead of cached rb_root for
extent_map_tree").

I don't know how you prefer the code, but it kept the two "while
(node)" loops in that file looking similar.

Of course, they were very different in other respects (ie
drop_all_extent_maps_fast() does all extents unconditionally with that
retry logic, while btrfs_scan_inode() has that whole "bail out on any
contention" model, so whatever.

Anyway, it all *looks* ok to me, but please go and double-check that I
didn't mess something up.

                Linus