On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 11:40:00AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:54:40AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 11/5/24 8:40 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:11:52AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > > >> On 11/5/24 8:08 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 05:52:05AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Why is this so difficult to grasp? It's a pretty common method for > > >>>> cross subsystem work - it avoids introducing conflicts when later > > >>>> work goes into each subsystem, and freedom of either side to send a > > >>>> PR before the other. > > >>>> > > >>>> So please don't start committing the patches again, it'll just cause > > >>>> duplicate (and empty) commits in Linus's tree. > > >>> > > >>> Jens, what's going on is that in order to test untorn (aka "atomic" > > >>> although that's a bit of a misnomer) writes, changes are needed in the > > >>> block, vfs, and ext4 or xfs git trees. So we are aware that you had > > >>> taken the block-related patches into the block tree. What Darrick has > > >>> done is to apply the the vfs patches on top of the block commits, and > > >>> then applied the ext4 and xfs patches on top of that. > > >> > > >> And what I'm saying is that is _wrong_. Darrick should be pulling the > > >> branch that you cut from my email: > > >> > > >> for-6.13/block-atomic > > >> > > >> rather than re-applying patches. At least if the intent is to send that > > >> branch to Linus. But even if it's just for testing, pretty silly to have > > >> branches with duplicate commits out there when the originally applied > > >> patches can just be pulled in. > > > > > > I *did* start my branch at the end of your block-atomic branch. > > > > > > Notice how the commits I added yesterday have a parent commitid of > > > 1eadb157947163ca72ba8963b915fdc099ce6cca, which is the head of your > > > for-6.13/block-atomic branch? > > > > Ah that's my bad, I didn't see a merge commit, so assumed it was just > > applied on top. Checking now, yeah it does look like it's done right! > > Would've been nicer on top of current -rc and with a proper merge > > commit, but that's really more of a style preference. Though -rc1 is > > pretty early... > > > > > But, it's my fault for not explicitly stating that I did that. One of > > > the lessons I apparently keep needing to learn is that senior developers > > > here don't actually pull and examine the branches I link to in my emails > > > before hitting Reply All to scold. You obviously didn't. > > > > I did click the link, in my defense it was on the phone this morning. > > And this wasn't meant as a scolding, nor do I think my wording really > > implies any scolding. My frustration was that I had explained this > > previously, and this seemed like another time to do the exact same. So > > my apologies if it came off like that, was not the intent. > > Fwiw, I pulled the branch that Darrick provided into vfs.untorn.writes > and it all looks sane to me. > Sounds good, will you submit a pull-request from it or shall I still submit the remaining ones to Linus? Carlos
