Re: [PATCH] xfs: drop experimental warning for FSDAX

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/29/23 9:17 AM, Chandan Babu R wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 09:20:52 AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:44:00 +0800 Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But please pick the following patch[1] as well, which fixes failures of 
> >>> xfs55[0-2] cases.
> >>>
> >>> [1] 
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230913102942.601271-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> I guess I can take that xfs patch, as it fixes a DAX patch.  I hope the xfs team
> >> are watching.
> >>
> >> But
> >>
> >> a) I'm not subscribed to linux-xfs and
> >>
> >> b) the changelog fails to describe the userspace-visible effects of
> >>    the bug, so I (and others) are unable to determine which kernel
> >>    versions should be patched.
> >>
> >> Please update that changelog and resend?
> > 
> > I will apply "xfs: correct calculation for agend and blockcount" patch to
> > xfs-linux Git tree and include it for the next v6.6 pull request to Linus.
> > 
> > At the outset, It looks like I can pick "mm, pmem, xfs: Introduce
> > MF_MEM_PRE_REMOVE for unbind"
> > (i.e. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230928103227.250550-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u)
> > patch for v6.7 as well. But that will require your Ack. Please let me know
> > your opinion.
> > 
> > Also, I will pick "xfs: drop experimental warning for FSDAX" patch for v6.7.
> 
> While I hate to drag it out even longer, it seems slightly optimistic to
> drop experimental at the same time as the "last" fix, in case it's not
> really the last fix.
> 
> But I don't have super strong feelings about it, and I would be happy to
> finally see experimental go away. So if those who are more tuned into
> the details are comfortable with that 6.7 plan, I'll defer to them on
> the question.

The main blockage of "experimental" was the inability to specify
dax+reflink, and the concern that resolving that conflict would end up
breaking MAP_SYNC semantics or some other regression.

The dax_notify_failure() work has resolved that conflict without
regressing semantics.

Ultimately this is an XFS filesystem maintainer decision, but my
perspective is that v6.7-rc1 starts the clock on experimental going away
and if the bug reports stay quiet that state can persist into
v6.7-final.  If new reports crop up, revert the experimental removal and
try again for v6.8.



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux