On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 08:37:21AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 05:06:59PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > > > No problem in splitting this change into 2 patches, 1 by unconditionally use > > > > __GFP_NOFAIL, and another changing the behavior to use NOFAIL only inside a > > > > transaction. > > > > > > > > Regarding the PF_FSTRANS flag, I opted by PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS after reading the > > > > commit which removed PF_FSTRANS initially (didn't mean to ignore your suggestion > > > > Dave, my apologies if I sounded like that), but I actually didn't find any commit > > > > re-adding PF_FSTRANS back. I searched most trees but couldn't find any commit > > > > re-adding it back, could you guys please point me out where is the commit adding > > > > it back? > > > > > > I suspect Dave is referring to: > > > > > > "xfs: reintroduce PF_FSTRANS for transaction reservation recursion > > > protection" by Yang Shao. > > > > > > AFAICT it hasn't cleared akpm yet, so it's not in his quiltpile, and as > > > he doesn't use git there won't be a commit until it ends up in > > > mainline... > > > > > > > Thanks, I think I'll wait until it hits the mainline before trying to push this > > series then. > > FWIW I could be persuaded to take that one via one of the xfs/iomap > trees if the author puts out a revised patch. Let's just defer that part of the patch. It really shouldn't be mixed with an API cleanup as it is significant behavior change.
