On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 13:59 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:50:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 03:40:08PM -0700, Alli wrote: > > > On Thu, 2022-04-07 at 15:49 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 08:11:06PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 12:03:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > - Logged attributes V28 (Allison) > > > > > > - I haven't looked at this since V24, so I'm not sure > > > > > > what > > > > > > the current status is. I will do that discovery later > > > > > > in > > > > > > the week. > > > > > > - Merge criteria and status: > > > > > > - review complete: Not sure > > > So far each patch in v29 has at least 2 rvbs I think > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > - no regressions when not enabled: v24 was OK > > > > > > - no major regressions when enabled: v24 had > > > > > > issues > > > > > > - Open questions: > > > > > > - not sure what review will uncover > > > > > > - don't know what problems testing will show > > > > > > - what other log fixes does it depend on? > > > If it goes on top of whiteouts, it will need some modifications > > > to > > > follow the new log item changes that the whiteout set makes. > > > > > > Alternately, if the white out set goes in after the larp set, > > > then it > > > will need to apply the new log item changes to xfs_attr_item.c as > > > well > > > > I figured as much, thanks for confirming! Hi Dave, sorry I just noticed this response after I had sent out the whiteout reviews last night > > Ok, so I've just gone through the process of merging the two > branches to see where we stand. The modifications to the log code > that are needed for the larp code - changes to log iovec processing > and padding - are out of date in the LARP v29 patchset. > > That is, the versions that are in the intent whiteout patchset are > much more sophisticated and cleanly separated. The version of the > "avoid extra transactions when no intents" patch in the LARP v29 > series is really only looking at whether the transaction is dirty, > not whether there are intents in the transactions, which is what we > really need to know when deciding whether to commit the transaction > or not. Ok, so it sounds like patch 2 of the larp set needs to be dropped then > > There are also a bunch of log iovec changes buried in patch 4 of the > LARP patchset which is labelled as "infrastructure". Those changes > are cleanly split out as patch 1 in the intent whiteout patchset and > provide the xlog_calc_vec_len() function that the LARP code needs. > Ok, I will see if I can separate those out then > As such, the RVBs on the patches in the LARPv29 series don't carry > over to the patches in the intent whiteout series - they are just > too different for that to occur. > > The additional changes needed to support intent whiteouts are > relatively straight forward for the attri/attrd items, so at this > point I'd much prefer that the two patchsets are ordered "intent > whiteouts" then "LARP". Alrighty then, sounds good. > > I've pushed the compose I just processed to get most of the pending > patchsets as they stand into topic branches and onto test machines > out to kernel.org. Have a look at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git xfs- > 5.19-compose Ok, I will take a look at this, I had not noticed it last night > > to see how I merged everything and maybe give it a run through your > test cycle to see if there's anything I broke when LARP is > enabled.... Great, thanks! Allison > > Cheers, > > Dave.
