From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 01:20:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160124012002.GU17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160124002658.GJ6033@dastard>
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:26:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> That's fair enough. However, compare this to how core locking
> changes occur in the mm subsystem - they go through multiple patch
> postings and review so there's no surprise when the pull request
> comes.
... and the thread in question has grown from precisely that (and not the first
iteration, either) for earlier such change (RCU symlinks). Subsequent one
(follow_link -> get_link, with RCU symlink traversal for non-embedded
symlinks) also went through fsdevel mailbombs (a couple of iterations, IIRC).
Seriously, when it comes to actual fs-visible behaviour changes (rather than
"please, try and use these helpers instead of open-coding ->i_mutex access"
done exactly to avoid the inter-tree dependencies from hell while that work
is being done) fsdevel will be hit by such mailbomb and probably more than
once.
For now it's really just a reduction of trivial conflicts for the next cycle;
eventually it's going to be a weaker VFS exclusion on ->lookup(). Which had
been loudly demanded quite a few times, and I don't recall any filesystem
developers _ever_ objecting to that.
Speaking of the earlier changes - IIRC, there had been plans to start
hashing (at least some of) XFS symlinks. I think it was from hch, along
the lines of "stash a buffer with symlink body into ->i_link the first time
around, free it from inode eviction". As long as that freeing is RCU-delayed,
doing so would work just fine and give you symlink traversal without dropping
from RCU mode... OTOH, if that gets resurrected, it probably ought to go
through XFS tree - all VFS infrastructure is there (since 4.2), so it's
purely XFS business at this point... One thing to watch out for is that
RCU delay - see shmem.c fix in the same pull request for related example.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-24 1:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-23 14:58 [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Al Viro
2016-01-23 22:34 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-23 22:44 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-23 23:09 ` Al Viro
2016-01-23 23:38 ` Al Viro
2016-01-24 0:53 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-24 1:41 ` Al Viro
2016-01-24 7:04 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-24 7:48 ` Al Viro
2016-01-23 23:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-01-24 0:26 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-24 1:20 ` Al Viro [this message]
2016-01-24 7:17 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160124012002.GU17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.