On Tue, 10 May 2022 19:43:01 -0700 "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 07:28:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 10 May 2022 18:55:50 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > It'll need to be a stable branch somewhere, but I don't think it > > > > really matters where al long as it's merged into the xfs for-next > > > > tree so it gets filesystem test coverage... > > > > > > So how about let the notify_failure() bits go through -mm this cycle, > > > if Andrew will have it, and then the reflnk work has a clean v5.19-rc1 > > > baseline to build from? > > > > What are we referring to here? I think a minimal thing would be the > > memremap.h and memory-failure.c changes from > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220508143620.1775214-4-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx ? > > > > Sure, I can scoot that into 5.19-rc1 if you think that's best. It > > would probably be straining things to slip it into 5.19. > > > > The use of EOPNOTSUPP is a bit suspect, btw. It *sounds* like the > > right thing, but it's a networking errno. I suppose livable with if it > > never escapes the kernel, but if it can get back to userspace then a > > user would be justified in wondering how the heck a filesystem > > operation generated a networking errno? > > <shrug> most filesystems return EOPNOTSUPP rather enthusiastically when > they don't know how to do something... Can it propagate back to userspace?
