On Sun, Dec 18 2016 at 5:54pm -0500, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:58:00AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > The time for 4.10 inclusion has passed. This needs to wait until 4.11. > > > > It also needs more review, testing and possible re-working. Each DM > > target shouldn't have to worry about these details (though I do grant > > that dm-crypt.c:clone_init call to bio_set_prio makes sense). > > > > A more generic solution is needed (likely in DM core). > > > > A while ago, Vivek floated a patch that spoke to the need for iocontext > > (for the purposes of cgroups): > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8485451/ > > > > I don't consider your patch too dissimilar. But it just needs to be > > worked on during a development window. On to 4.11 ;) > > Mike, this current patch is a pure bugfix, Spinning it as a pure bugfix is a reach (as Eric's header documents the patch, the case is weak for cc'ing stable). Reality is the change is needed to enable a new bcache feature. I'm not going to rush feature-enabling change that arrived in the last minute. > and you can't fault Eric for not > wanting to do work on dm-cache too when all he's trying to do is solve a > particular real world problem. He should be able to do that without having to > dive into dm-cache code too. > > Furthermore, pretty much every filesystem has private ioctls and interfaces - > this is no different. You're completely misreading my having raised dm-cache. I was poinitng out that Eric's patch to enable a new bcache feature ontop of dm-crypt was too late. Had Eric known of this limitation sooner or thought to engage me or the rest of dm-devel then DM could've been fixed with precision during the 4.10 development window. I wasn't saying Eric should've worked on dm-cache. But had he raised this bcache feature to my attention, in the context of missing ioprio and why dm-cache would/could use it in the future too, then it'd have been all the better. Simple as that. I was trying to be helpful. Not trying to be a PITA in any way. > If you dm guys want to standardize something, that's awesome - and in hindsight, > it wouldn't have been a bad idea to CC you guys on the original patches. But > please keep in mind Eric's not a full time kernel developer, and don't crap on > his work just becausue he's not working on dm-cache too. You don't get to make this something it isn't. I didn't crap on anything. This line of development will be pursued in Januaray when I get back from holiday break. If there is a stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx worthy change that comes from that development then so be it. Could be that the change(s) will land during 4.10-rc but I cannot put time to it until after January 2. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
