On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:11 PM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Of this patch queue, either only the first patch or all four patches can > > be applied to fix gfs2's current issues in 5.8. Please let me know what > > you think. > > I think the IOCB_NOIO flag looks fine (apart from the nit I pointed > out), and we could do that. Ok, that's a step forward. > However, is the "revert and reinstate" looks odd. Is the reinstate so > different from the original that it makes sense to do that way? > > Or was it done that way only to give the choice of just doing the revert? > > Because if so, I think I'd rather just see a "fix" rather than > "revert+reinstate". I only did the "revert and reinstate" so that the revert alone will give us a working gfs2 in 5.8. If there's agreement to add the IOCB_NOIO flag, then we can just fix gfs2 (basically https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200619093916.1081129-3-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx/ with IOCB_CACHED renamed to IOCB_NOIO). Thanks, Andreas
