From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: mszeredi@redhat.com, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
lkp@intel.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@gmail.com>,
ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] vfs: fix readahead(2) on block devices
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:08:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230926-leinen-kaltlassen-b5cef5a1e877@brauner> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxh7+avP=m8DW_u14Ea4Hrk1xhyuT--t2XX868CBquOCaA@mail.gmail.com>
> What you are saying makes sense.
> And if we are being honest, I think that the right thing to do from the
> beginning was to separate the bug fix commit from the UAPI change.
>
> The minimal bug fix is S_ISREG || S_ISBLK, which
> mentions the Fixes commit and will be picked for stable kernels.
>
> Following up with another one or two patches that change
> the behavior of posix_fadvise on socket and readahead on
> socket and pipe.
>
> The UAPI change is not something that has to go to stable
> and it should be easily revertable independently of the bug fix.
> Doing it otherwise would make our lives much harder if regressions
> turn up from the UAPI change.
>
> Christian, Matthew,
>
> Do you agree?
Fine by me.
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Reuben Hawkins <reubenhwk@gmail.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>,
mszeredi@redhat.com, lkp@intel.com,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, ltp@lists.linux.it,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] vfs: fix readahead(2) on block devices
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:08:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230926-leinen-kaltlassen-b5cef5a1e877@brauner> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxh7+avP=m8DW_u14Ea4Hrk1xhyuT--t2XX868CBquOCaA@mail.gmail.com>
> What you are saying makes sense.
> And if we are being honest, I think that the right thing to do from the
> beginning was to separate the bug fix commit from the UAPI change.
>
> The minimal bug fix is S_ISREG || S_ISBLK, which
> mentions the Fixes commit and will be picked for stable kernels.
>
> Following up with another one or two patches that change
> the behavior of posix_fadvise on socket and readahead on
> socket and pipe.
>
> The UAPI change is not something that has to go to stable
> and it should be easily revertable independently of the bug fix.
> Doing it otherwise would make our lives much harder if regressions
> turn up from the UAPI change.
>
> Christian, Matthew,
>
> Do you agree?
Fine by me.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-26 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-09 4:38 [PATCH] vfs: fix readahead(2) on block devices Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-09 6:36 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-10 10:02 ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-11 8:15 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-19 2:47 ` [LTP] " kernel test robot
2023-09-19 2:47 ` kernel test robot
2023-09-19 8:43 ` [LTP] " Amir Goldstein
2023-09-19 8:43 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-21 13:01 ` [LTP] " Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-21 14:44 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-21 14:44 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-22 9:10 ` [LTP] " Cyril Hrubis
2023-09-22 9:10 ` Cyril Hrubis
2023-09-22 20:29 ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-23 5:56 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-23 5:56 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-23 12:20 ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-23 12:28 ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-23 14:41 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-23 14:41 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-23 15:48 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-23 15:48 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 3:48 ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-24 6:46 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 6:46 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 11:47 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 11:47 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 14:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-24 14:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-24 15:32 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 15:32 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-24 21:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-24 21:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-25 4:35 ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-25 6:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-25 6:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-25 9:43 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-25 9:43 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-25 12:39 ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-25 12:39 ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-25 15:36 ` Reuben Hawkins
2023-09-25 16:51 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-25 16:51 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-26 10:08 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2023-09-26 10:08 ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-26 1:56 ` Oliver Sang
2023-09-26 1:56 ` Oliver Sang
2023-09-26 5:34 ` Amir Goldstein
2023-09-26 5:34 ` Amir Goldstein
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=20230926-leinen-kaltlassen-b5cef5a1e877@brauner \
--to=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=reubenhwk@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.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.