On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:12:04AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:51:12PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 02:32:44PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > However, an issue is that disabling CONFIG_BUFFER_HEAD in practice is not viable > > > for many Linux distributions since it also means disabling support for most > > > filesystems other than btrfs and XFS. So we either support larger order folios > > > on buffer-heads, or we draw up a solution to enable co-existence. Since at LSFMM > > > 2023 it was decided we would not support larger order folios on buffer-heads, > > > > Um, I didn't agree to that. > > Coverage on sunsetting buffer-heads talk by LWN: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/931809/ > > "the apparent conclusion from the session: the buffer-head layer will be > converted to use folios internally while minimizing changes visible to > the filesystems using it. Only single-page folios will be used within > this new buffer-head layer. Any other desires, he said, can be addressed > later after this problem has been solved." Other people said that. Not me. I said it was fine for single buffer_head per folio.
