Re: [PATCH 09/15] ceph: Use a folio in ceph_filemap_fault()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2023-08-28 at 09:19 +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
> On 8/26/23 11:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 09:12:19PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > > +++ b/fs/ceph/addr.c
> > > @@ -1608,29 +1608,30 @@ static vm_fault_t ceph_filemap_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > >   		ret = VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > >   	} else {
> > >   		struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> > > -		struct page *page;
> > > +		struct folio *folio;
> > >   
> > >   		filemap_invalidate_lock_shared(mapping);
> > > -		page = find_or_create_page(mapping, 0,
> > > +		folio = __filemap_get_folio(mapping, 0,
> > > +				FGP_LOCK|FGP_ACCESSED|FGP_CREAT,
> > >   				mapping_gfp_constraint(mapping, ~__GFP_FS));
> > > -		if (!page) {
> > > +		if (!folio) {
> > This needs to be "if (IS_ERR(folio))".  Meant to fix that but forgot.
> > 
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> Next time please rebase to the latest ceph-client latest upstream 
> 'testing' branch, we need to test this series by using the qa 
> teuthology, which is running based on the 'testing' branch.
> 

People working on wide-scale changes to the kernel really shouldn't have
to go hunting down random branches to base their changes on. That's the
purpose of linux-next.

This is an ongoing problem with ceph maintenance -- patches sit in the
"testing" branch that doesn't go into linux-next. Anyone who wants to
work on patches vs. linux-next that touch ceph runs the risk of
developing against outdated code.

The rationale for this (at least at one time) was a fear of breaking
linux-next, but that its purpose. If there are problems, we want to know
early!

As long as you don't introduce build breaks, anything you shovel into
next is unlikely to be a problematic. There aren't that many people
doing ceph testing with linux-next, so the risk of breaking things is
pretty low, at least with patches that only touch ceph code. You do need
to be a bit more careful with patches that touch common code, but those
are pretty rare in the ceph tree.

Please change this!
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux