On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 10:36:15PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 12:02:47PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > The follow up including a statement about "being arsed" once more was > > > to Christian, not you and was rather "tongue in cheek". > > > > Fyi, I can't be arsed to be talked to like that. > > > > > Whether the patch is ready for reviews and whatnot is your call to > > > make as the author. > > > > This is basically why that patch never staid in -next. Dave said this > > patch is meaningless without his other patchs and I had no reason to > > doubt that claim nor currently the cycles to benchmark and disprove it. > > It was a big benefit to bcachefs performance, and I've had it in my tree > for quite some time. Was there any other holdup? Plenty. - A lack of recent validation against ext4, btrfs and other filesystems. - the loss of lockdep coverage by moving to bit locks - it breaks CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y because we nest other spinlocks inside the inode_hash_lock and we can't do that if we convert the inode hash to bit locks because RT makes spinlocks sleeping locks. - There's been additions for lockless RCU inode hash lookups from AFS and ext4 in weird, uncommon corner cases and I have no idea how to validate they still work correctly with hash-bl. I suspect they should just go away with hash-bl, but.... There's more, but these are the big ones. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
