Re: [ANNOUNCE] work tree for untorn filesystem writes

[Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:54:40AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/5/24 8:40 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:11:52AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 11/5/24 8:08 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 05:52:05AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Why is this so difficult to grasp? It's a pretty common method for
> >>>> cross subsystem work - it avoids introducing conflicts when later
> >>>> work goes into each subsystem, and freedom of either side to send a
> >>>> PR before the other.
> >>>>
> >>>> So please don't start committing the patches again, it'll just cause
> >>>> duplicate (and empty) commits in Linus's tree.
> >>>
> >>> Jens, what's going on is that in order to test untorn (aka "atomic"
> >>> although that's a bit of a misnomer) writes, changes are needed in the
> >>> block, vfs, and ext4 or xfs git trees.  So we are aware that you had
> >>> taken the block-related patches into the block tree.  What Darrick has
> >>> done is to apply the the vfs patches on top of the block commits, and
> >>> then applied the ext4 and xfs patches on top of that.
> >>
> >> And what I'm saying is that is _wrong_. Darrick should be pulling the
> >> branch that you cut from my email:
> >>
> >> for-6.13/block-atomic
> >>
> >> rather than re-applying patches. At least if the intent is to send that
> >> branch to Linus. But even if it's just for testing, pretty silly to have
> >> branches with duplicate commits out there when the originally applied
> >> patches can just be pulled in.
> > 
> > I *did* start my branch at the end of your block-atomic branch.
> > 
> > Notice how the commits I added yesterday have a parent commitid of
> > 1eadb157947163ca72ba8963b915fdc099ce6cca, which is the head of your
> > for-6.13/block-atomic branch?
> 
> Ah that's my bad, I didn't see a merge commit, so assumed it was just
> applied on top. Checking now, yeah it does look like it's done right!
> Would've been nicer on top of current -rc and with a proper merge
> commit, but that's really more of a style preference. Though -rc1 is
> pretty early...
> 
> > But, it's my fault for not explicitly stating that I did that.  One of
> > the lessons I apparently keep needing to learn is that senior developers
> > here don't actually pull and examine the branches I link to in my emails
> > before hitting Reply All to scold.  You obviously didn't.
> 
> I did click the link, in my defense it was on the phone this morning.
> And this wasn't meant as a scolding, nor do I think my wording really
> implies any scolding. My frustration was that I had explained this
> previously, and this seemed like another time to do the exact same. So
> my apologies if it came off like that, was not the intent.

Fwiw, I pulled the branch that Darrick provided into vfs.untorn.writes
and it all looks sane to me.