From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDAFC433EF for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 02:28:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8109C6B0071; Tue, 10 May 2022 22:28:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 79BEC6B0072; Tue, 10 May 2022 22:28:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5EB486B0073; Tue, 10 May 2022 22:28:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0936B0071 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 22:28:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D280307E4 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 02:28:57 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79451879514.05.69FA4BD Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7988C00A7 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 02:28:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D874261B89; Wed, 11 May 2022 02:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADD4CC385D8; Wed, 11 May 2022 02:28:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1652236135; bh=iY/lEhwjb6LKaL0NjJtVnQB+oNQ+W9132bMfjAgOpIQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ti4RHrQHQ/IYAqcw5QtmW2G625U1SYwfY3cdLlEt+2LyvMc28jK7OZtuqpAdciO4E A1sDROVPAwe+6g7pxZqpuXEI9pmVEJetL4XvpAT7Oamo0HXuaxWGMgnGEW/sswm6rN OqzYpcJy6JZBzUjuzdr0qi0VLvnA2SIfIfJJZKI0= Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 19:28:53 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Dan Williams Cc: Dave Chinner , "Darrick J. Wong" , Shiyang Ruan , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-xfs , Linux NVDIMM , Linux MM , linux-fsdevel , Christoph Hellwig , Jane Chu , Goldwyn Rodrigues , Al Viro , Matthew Wilcox , Naoya Horiguchi , linmiaohe@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCHSETS] v14 fsdax-rmap + v11 fsdax-reflink Message-Id: <20220510192853.410ea7587f04694038cd01de@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20220508143620.1775214-1-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com> <20220511000352.GY27195@magnolia> <20220511014818.GE1098723@dread.disaster.area> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D7988C00A7 X-Stat-Signature: khmqnpbidw9q16i4h8kdpwkzpehor7ok X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf22.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=Ti4RHrQH; spf=pass (imf22.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 139.178.84.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org; dmarc=none X-HE-Tag: 1652236134-960049 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 10 May 2022 18:55:50 -0700 Dan Williams wrote: > > It'll need to be a stable branch somewhere, but I don't think it > > really matters where al long as it's merged into the xfs for-next > > tree so it gets filesystem test coverage... > > So how about let the notify_failure() bits go through -mm this cycle, > if Andrew will have it, and then the reflnk work has a clean v5.19-rc1 > baseline to build from? What are we referring to here? I think a minimal thing would be the memremap.h and memory-failure.c changes from https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220508143620.1775214-4-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com ? Sure, I can scoot that into 5.19-rc1 if you think that's best. It would probably be straining things to slip it into 5.19. The use of EOPNOTSUPP is a bit suspect, btw. It *sounds* like the right thing, but it's a networking errno. I suppose livable with if it never escapes the kernel, but if it can get back to userspace then a user would be justified in wondering how the heck a filesystem operation generated a networking errno?