> On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:46:04AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:08:58AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 05:22:54PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>>> - it's become apparent that there haven't been any real objections to the code >>>> that was queued up for 5.15. There _are_ very real discussions and points of >>>> contention still to be decided and resolved for the work beyond file backed >>>> pages, but those discussions were what derailed the more modest, and more >>>> badly needed, work that affects everyone in filesystem land >>> >>> Unfortunately, I think this is a result of me wanting to discuss a way >>> forward rather than a way back. >>> >>> To clarify: I do very much object to the code as currently queued up, >>> and not just to a vague future direction. >>> >>> The patches add and convert a lot of complicated code to provision for >>> a future we do not agree on. The indirections it adds, and the hybrid >>> state it leaves the tree in, make it directly more difficult to work >>> with and understand the MM code base. Stuff that isn't needed for >>> exposing folios to the filesystems. >>> >>> As Willy has repeatedly expressed a take-it-or-leave-it attitude in >>> response to my feedback, I'm not excited about merging this now and >>> potentially leaving quite a bit of cleanup work to others if the >>> downstream discussion don't go to his liking. > > We're at a take-it-or-leave-it point for this pull request. The time > for discussion was *MONTHS* ago. > I’ll admit I’m not impartial, but my fundamental goal is moving the patches forward. Given folios will need long term maintenance, engagement, and iteration throughout mm/, take-it-or-leave-it pulls seem like a recipe for future conflict, and more importantly, bugs. I’d much rather work it out now. -chris
