Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Prep patches for porting overlayfs to new mount api

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:46:52PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:26 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 11:46:57AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > Miklos,
> > >
> > > Following some more cleanup patches that make Christian's new mount api
> > > patches smaller and easier to review.
> > >
> > > I had rebased Christain's patches over these cleanups and pushed the
> > > result to github branch fs-overlayfs-mount_api [1].
> > >
> > > The v1 prep patches had a bug with xino option parsing that resulted in
> > > some tests being skipped (not failing) and I had only noticed the
> > > skipped test after posting v1.
> > >
> > > The v2 prep patches + new mount api patches have passed all the tests
> > > with no new tests skipped.
> > >
> > > In addition to running the tests with the default kernel config, I also
> > > ran the tests with the following non-default configs (individually):
> > >
> > > 1) CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_REDIRECT_DIR=y
> > > 2) CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_REDIRECT_ALWAYS_FOLLOW=n
> > > 3) CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_XINO_AUTO=y
> >
> > Thanks for splitting some work into preparatory patches. I'm not sure
> > how worthwhile this actually is given they aren't marked as backports
> > for LTS releases so the overall delta ould still the same between LTSes
> > and mainline but it might make bisection easier.
> 
> Yeh, bisection, review, all the usual reasons for keep unrelated changes
> split. I am not usually fanatic about splitting hairs on this, but the
> mount api porting patch was already a big change that was hard for me to
> review and it grew all those extra additions like redirect_mode which
> were good changes, but not related, so I did this to make my own (and others)
> review of your patches easier.
> 
> I am glad if we are all happy with the end result.

Yeah, I appreciate the work and wasn't trying to critique it. I just
wouldn't have bothered because the mount api port in itself is
cumbersome enough. :)



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Devel]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux