On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:09:14PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Mon, May 21 2018 at 11:36am -0400, > Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 5/21/18 9:18 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > On Mon, May 21 2018 at 11:09am -0400, > > > Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> On 5/21/18 9:04 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > >>> On Mon, May 21 2018 at 10:52am -0400, > > >>> Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> > ... > > >>>> IMHO you're making a big deal out of something that should not be. > > >>> > > >>> I raised an issue that had seemingly not been considered at all. Not > > >>> making a big deal. Raising it for others' benefit. > > >>> > > >>>> If the dm bits are that sensitive and cache line honed to perfection > > >>>> already due to previous regressions in that area, then it might > > >>>> not be a bad idea to have some compile checks for false cacheline > > >>>> sharing between sensitive members, or spilling of a sub-struct > > >>>> into multiple cachelines. > > >>>> > > >>>> It's not like this was pushed behind your back. It's posted for > > >>>> review. It's quite possible the net change is a win for dm. Let's > > >>>> focus on getting it reviewed, rather than pontificate on what > > >>>> could potentially go all wrong with this. > > >>> > > >>> Why are you making this personal? Or purely about DM? I'm merely > > >>> pointing out this change isn't something that can be given a quick > > >>> blanket "looks good". > > >> > > >> I'm not making this personal at all?! You raised a (valid) concern, > > >> I'm merely stating why I don't think it's a high risk issue. I'm > > >> assuming your worry is related to dm, as those are the reports > > >> that would ultimately land on your desk. > > > > > > Then we'll just agree to disagree with what this implies: "It's not like > > > this was pushed behind your back." > > > > I'm afraid you've lost me now - it was not pushed behind your back, > > it was posted for review, with you on the CC list. Not trying to > > be deliberately dense here, I just don't see what our disagreement is. > > You're having an off day ;) Mondays and all? > > I just raised an alignment concern that needs to be considered during > review by all stakeholders. Wasn't upset at all. Maybe my email tone > came off otherwise? > > And then you got confused by me pointing out how it was weird for you to > suggest I felt this stuff was pushed behind my back.. and went on to > think I really think that. It's almost like you're a confused hypnotist > seeding me with paranoid dilutions. ;) Uh, you came across as upset and paranoid to me too. Chalk it up to email? :) I personally don't care, I have no horse in this race. This particular patch series wasn't my idea, Christoph wanted all these conversions done so bioset_create() could be deleted. If you want us to hold off on the dm patch for awhile until someone can get around to testing it or whatever (since I don't have tests for everything I pushed) that would be perfectly fine by me. -- 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
