On 10/05/22 16:04, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:43:07AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On 10/05/22 09:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the folio tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> fs/btrfs/send.c
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>> d1a1a97304b4 ("btrfs: send: keep the current inode open while processing it")
>>>
>>> from the btrfs tree and commit:
>>>
>>> 2ebdd1df3166 ("mm/readahead: Convert page_cache_async_readahead to take a folio")
>>>
>>> from the folio tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
>>
>> Looks correct to me.
>
> Me too. The patch this one enables is rather sad. It's yet another
> reminder that we suck at streaming workloads. But until we fix that,
> don't you want to use invalidate_inode_pages2_range() rather than
> truncate_inode_pages_range()? If your send conflicts with someone
> else's write(), you'll erase their write to the page cache.
Send operates only on readonly trees, so it can't happen.
Thanks.
>
