On 9/6/23 8:03 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 03:28:47PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>> Hi Kent,
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 11:25:55PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>> here's the bcachefs pull request, for 6.6. Hopefully everything
>>> outstanding from the previous PR thread has been resolved; the block
>>> layer prereqs are in now via Jens's tree and the dcache helper has a
>>> reviewed-by from Christain.
>>
>> I pulled this into mainline locally and did an LLVM build, which found
>> an immediate issue. It appears the bcachefs codes uses zero length
>
> It looks like this series hasn't been in -next at all? That seems like a
> pretty important step.
>
> Also, when I look at the PR, it seems to be a branch history going
> back _years_. For this kind of a feature, I'd expect a short series of
> "here's the code" in incremental additions (e.g. look at the x86 shstk
> series), not the development history from it being out of tree -- this
> could easily lead to ugly bisection problems, etc.
When we merged btrfs, Linus helped redo all of the btrfs out of tree
commits on top of kernel git. I can't remember at this point if it was
his idea or mine, but git history is obviously improved by remembering
my sparse file joy:
commit 3a686375629da5d2e2ad019265b66ef113c87455
Author: Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu May 24 13:35:57 2007 -0400
Btrfs: sparse files!
I'd have a preference for keeping the old history, warts and all, but
wanted to give a data point to help jog people's memory around problems
it might have caused.
-chris
