From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-f197.google.com (mail-yb1-f197.google.com [209.85.219.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17916B026B for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yb1-f197.google.com with SMTP id 203-v6so2673353ybf.19 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id h27-v6sor2728163ywk.4.2018.10.10.08.23.55 for (Google Transport Security); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:23:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <153913023835.32295.13962696655740190941.stgit@magnolia> <153913029885.32295.7399525233513945673.stgit@magnolia> <20181010151321.GR28243@magnolia> In-Reply-To: <20181010151321.GR28243@magnolia> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:23:43 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/25] vfs: combine the clone and dedupe into a single remap_file_range Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Dave Chinner , Eric Sandeen , Linux NFS Mailing List , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, overlayfs , linux-xfs , Linux MM , Linux Btrfs , linux-fsdevel , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:13 PM Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:54:44AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:12 AM Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong > > > > > > Combine the clone_file_range and dedupe_file_range operations into a > > > single remap_file_range file operation dispatch since they're > > > fundamentally the same operation. The differences between the two can > > > be made in the prep functions. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > > > --- > > > > > > Apart from the generic check invalid flags comment - ACK on ovl part. > > Thanks for the review! Is that an official Acked-by to add to the > commit message, or an informal ACK? > I would offer my Acked-by for whole of the vfs patches if we agree on the correct way to handle invalid flags (see more comments up the series regarding the "advisory" flags). Thanks, Amir.