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 E9349C433FE for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 04:35:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 42F326B0073; Wed, 11 May 2022 00:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3DE006B0075; Wed, 11 May 2022 00:35:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2A5B96B0078; Wed, 11 May 2022 00:35:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E076B0073 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 00:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC2131977 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 04:35:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79452197286.16.65F9E4D Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9125E100092 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 04:34:45 +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 ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E0E8B8211B; Wed, 11 May 2022 04:35:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F343EC385A7; Wed, 11 May 2022 04:34:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1652243700; bh=dsj+ZDTdOyjl2nvx/T0s5GUG3Qqs3v13r9iZnNk3GeY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=N95KQ47yLpZzoliJWy9obyTC849N1Xz9FDYl+C7cJS839jR2C5nSPFk69RrlJLmQp /S3cSpg4Sv8s3Sp1HilGh6Uv8ej1uLrsXOFvJxKqUShCThFhawkxkGc39/3fgqB3kv fpahe7Bfdrrm5Sp5Fg7L8ogOtgrTH1HzYRbRc4HCViPi6SJGY/IGarG0t2ujwjt/CQ qSfcknioaPlNReFlFqj1x8oiTV8OKMTsxnxHWMIR2cCUPA07m6zYBUly4JR4cNYP1t WAApWiAgvus4Ttds3v2CTWTu2qG0ErRKQlVhf9/usvzRhrUHcLh90n9psUAjQa3J0Q FG2HPPH3Cr3eg== Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 21:34:59 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Dan Williams Cc: Andrew Morton , Dave Chinner , 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: <20220511043459.GE27195@magnolia> References: <20220508143620.1775214-1-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com> <20220511000352.GY27195@magnolia> <20220511014818.GE1098723@dread.disaster.area> <20220510192853.410ea7587f04694038cd01de@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9125E100092 X-Stat-Signature: sbwr8k8hftf9kc1biqkpgpx48rdq9z17 Authentication-Results: imf05.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=N95KQ47y; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org; spf=pass (imf05.hostedemail.com: domain of djwong@kernel.org designates 145.40.68.75 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=djwong@kernel.org X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1652243685-423508 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, May 10, 2022 at 09:20:57PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:29 PM Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > 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 ? > > Latest is here: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220508143620.1775214-1-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. > > Hmm, if it's straining things and XFS will also target v5.20 I think > the best course for all involved is just wait. Let some of the current > conflicts in -mm land in v5.19 and then I can merge the DAX baseline > and publish a stable branch for XFS and BTRFS to build upon for v5.20. Sounds good to /me... --D > > 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?