On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 03:33:14PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 at 01:38, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:50:12AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > this series cleans up the xfs writepage code and then lifts it to > > > fs/iomap.c so that it could be use by other file system. I've been > > > wanting to this for a while so that I could eventually convert gfs2 > > > over to it, but I never got to it. Now Damien has a new zonefs > > > file system for semi-raw access to zoned block devices that would > > > like to use the iomap code instead of reinventing it, so I finally > > > had to do the work. > > > > Hmm... I don't like how there are xfs changes mixed in with the iomap > > changes, because were I to take this series as-is then I'd have to > > commit both to adding iomap writeback code /and/ converting xfs at the > > same time. > > > > I think I'd be more comfortable creating a branch to merge the changes > > to list.h and fs/iomap/, and then gfs2/zonefs/xfs can sprout their own > > branches from there to do whatever conversions are necessary. > > > > To me what that means is splitting patch 7 into 7a which does the iomap > > changes and 7b which does the xfs changes. To get there, I'd create a > > iomap-writeback branch containing: > > > > 1 7a 8 9 10 11 12 > > > > and then a new xfs-iomap-writeback branch containing: > > > > 2 4 7b > > > > This eliminates the need for patches 3, 5, and 6, though the cost is > > that it's less clear from the history that we did some reorganizing of > > the xfs writeback code and then moved it over to iomap. OTOH, I also > > see this as a way to lower risk because if some patch in the > > xfs-iomap-writeback branch shakes loose a bug that doesn't affect gfs2 > > or zonedfs we don't have to hold them up. > > > > I'll try to restructure this series along those lines and report back > > how it went. > > Keeping the infrastructure changes in separate commits would certainly > make the patches easier to work with for me. Keeping the commits > interleaved should be fine though: patch "iomap: zero newly allocated > mapped blocks" depends on "xfs: set IOMAP_F_NEW more carefully", so a > pure infrastructure branch without "xfs: set IOMAP_F_NEW more > carefully" probably wouldn't be correct. <nod> In the end I went with: iomap: 1 7a 8 9 10 11 12 and then atop that: xfs: 2 4 3 5 6 7b Because xfs can merge the refactoring in patches 2 & 4 without needing to take patches 3-7b. Will retest overnight with -rc2 (now that scsi works again <cough>). --D > Thanks, > Andreas
