I like the direction of this work—it addresses some long‑standing issues and makes the complex writeback logic far more manageable. The patches fix known problems with page locking and writeback blockers and improve the overall code structure. I don't see any specific issues. The changes do introduce some inherent risk due to the extensive nature of the modifications, the patches have already survived a good number of xfstest runs, which is very encouraging. Reviewed-by: "Alex Markuze <amarkuze@xxxxxxxxxx>" On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 3:10 PM Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:59 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:58:00AM +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > Hi Christian, > > > > > > Unless the ceph people would prefer to take them through the ceph tree, can > > > you consider taking the following fixes: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250205000249.123054-1-slava@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > into the VFS tree and adding: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250217185119.430193-1-willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > on top of that. Willy's patches are for the next merge window, but are > > > rebased on top of Viacheslav's patches. > > > > > > I have the patches here also: > > > > > > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=ceph-folio > > > > Sure! Thanks! I'll wait until tomorrow so people have time to reply. > > No objection to taking Viacheslav's and Willy's patches through the VFS > tree given that there is a dependency and Willy wanted his 10/9 that is > strictly speaking outside of Ceph to go along. It would be good if Alex > could review Viacheslav's series first though as it's a pretty sizeable > refactor. > > Thanks, > > Ilya >
