On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:31:48AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:30:19PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:43:21AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > FWIW, I don't really have a strong opinion. To me, removing experimental > > > means we feel the code has stabilized long enough in principle, there > > > are no significant problems (i.e., corruption/crash vectors) that we are > > > aware of and the feature is complete (full userspace tool support, etc). > > > The in-core extent list thing seems like more of a general problem to me > > > > Agreed so far. > > <nod> Dave? Eric? Any perspective you'd like to offer? :) > > > > That aside, shouldn't we consider the rmapbt experimental tag first, or > > > at least at the same time? It's been around for slightly longer. > > > > I've not done much testing on that or have experience with it in general, > > nor do I have a customer with a big QA team beating it hard, so I can't > > really comment on that one. > > rmapbt will remain EXPERIMENTAL because I still have more patches to > send to finish the feature for realtime devices. Speaking of which, > it's now been 53 weeks since the last dump of that, so I'll go do that > now. :P > > FWIW I /also/ run rmapbt everywhere and haven't had any trouble with it > since adding the per-AG reservations. > My question then is do we want to encourage users to run reflink without rmapbt because of the latter being experimental, and only so because of a lack of realtime support? *shrug* Maybe it doesn't really matter. But realistically, how likely is it that the stability of forthcoming rmapbt+realtime code has any bearing on making rmapbt non-experimental in general? I suspect we're not going to leave it experimental for another however many months just to let the rt code sit around. I also suspect not many people will be actually using/testing that code outside of some of us, but maybe there are real users out there and I'm just not aware of them..? (This all coming from somebody who has CONFIG_XFS_RT disabled on his configs. ;) If realtime is the only barrier, ISTM we could remove the experimental rmapbt status and just disable rmapbt+rt for now. Then re-enable EXPERIMENTAL just for rmapbt+rt when that code goes in (which seems like the most likely end result to me anyways). Brian > --D > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
