From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C325D1D1753; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 10:40:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730889606; cv=none; b=R9sBY5/iMG6MW+NJJdJshqLXgm4lnjwGYXHcUqB7jrTE/DpZwWF+Py0ggAYto4696X1lycl/qVuvwSKmeKO4Bk0p+yu7Kb1mYVEeZNq3QPivLY/XANEYK61DmiXuTsWH1DO6uta6CU80/pbsAUVtwDCpP6YjADM+PGlYfiWTWkc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730889606; c=relaxed/simple; bh=II1Cw9WyiI/NLZcAELD6NgMA0DFZpwlqXmvxCdhqAD0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ofBJcQBYfjPQIS2TsnAw8u2G2bxNIVzhQFhXJ/nQscB22Zl5NR0ooX9DF4utwknClf8y2l0Jtsw2HJfAubxwyaWjGCqWcYfKUlwxvq1nBc+xrGKJqZ9ddprCQgFNT6kJjqt8UmqDOuq6+ElInGwOXoWqCR/W6/LJuwsRG6V3ocY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=DEogLUqi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="DEogLUqi" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98B67C4CECD; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 10:40:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1730889606; bh=II1Cw9WyiI/NLZcAELD6NgMA0DFZpwlqXmvxCdhqAD0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DEogLUqiMmuObMNMeSY8FcHdvgDogMK+QyjinwG/XNCnQ8SNYK4LRpLkaXxrfVwRm JM+RDFqx7L4ZhBnQ6Bj3w7vL6rRqVGzGGeulgi36v+cLzgO9AEUbPIP7+v7LVH6YZ7 mGEAJ9fWWObcIAhHO7KCMtJfqSiBobCeUJz1lZzcwN9B4OEA55NK1I8GINTYrwaoz5 6uOOzMREbwAt4umCxFlpEU4r3TQN0ZcuenROmPKcZBPUzdOHpFxzMegP4Ns2Szgfav WdQzvVjVMBItJlcgwYC6JB5MhK3TowyO93eJGL90932WnvqFXVbY5uhzDx2v/23Xb+ ZFZ2E9786oFIg== Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 11:40:00 +0100 From: Christian Brauner To: Jens Axboe Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Theodore Ts'o , Carlos Maiolino , "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" , John Garry , Catherine Hoang , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara , Christoph Hellwig , Ojaswin Mujoo , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] work tree for untorn filesystem writes Message-ID: <20241106-hupen-phosphor-f4e126535131@brauner> References: <20241105004341.GO21836@frogsfrogsfrogs> <72515c41-4313-4287-97cc-040ec143b3c5@kernel.dk> <20241105150812.GA227621@mit.edu> <5557bb8e-0ab8-4346-907e-a6cfea1dabf8@kernel.dk> <20241105154044.GD2578692@frogsfrogsfrogs> <00618fda-985d-4d6b-ada1-2d93a5380492@kernel.dk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00618fda-985d-4d6b-ada1-2d93a5380492@kernel.dk> 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.