On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 5:57 PM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oraclecom> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 2024, at 11:32 AM, Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 04:26:34AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >> Sasha, > >> Something is off. > >> This is a new feature. > >> Not sure how it got selected for stable and dragged a *lot* of > >> infrastructure code changes with it. > >> Can you explain why triggered this backports or is it just "AI"? > > > > Hey Amir, > > > > The patches you've pointed out are part of a series backported by Chuck > > for the benefit of nfsd. > > > > In general, we don't object to new functionality as long as: > > > > 1. It helps reduce divergence of later fixes from upstream. > > 2. It's well tested. > > Amir, this is why I asked you about how you test fanotify. > > The goal of my backport was to address issues with the NFSD > filecache, and unfortunately, a lot of it depends on fixes > and features in fs/notify. OK, I wonder which features filecache depends on? I can't believe that it depends on any of the final "wire up fanotify XXX" commits. Anyway, I do not have an objection to backporting those features, just wanted to know if there was a reason. In house, we are using the 5.15 LTS kernel with some of those features backported. Jan, WDYT? Thanks, Amir.
