From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 DBB162F99BD; Thu, 9 Apr 2026 06:40:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775716843; cv=none; b=aX7Ag8MPGZY7jTqYOtCLI26mjlxBWJocLe115cHZhqvdIioECplpfnkcN0YfGVtLpGTYpi2XqKJzSNvB9S6G0Ic8AxhC96T9ISpaZ5OOHUGutHI7NNVQToyjg+4bODKUmJrN/x3r1qsz9O1BVOho+mnzpH8Hm1yjcHWf4k2G0Gw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775716843; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bUrD7CvlyUNPy7W+n0eAkkmfVEgw0M7Q1Lqcg2mrkmo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=A1/qkHageDPow3tm4z4RZKBK0Xvz3LtReJul8tZ/d1yB3/zhC20jfSYGGausDsVVfKh+V5bsNeiDV4sD4+Nx1o0JYjA0TShxjM0zH1VPhXF1njDvIM5DjsrXaAs5cshkWBKit6e2x7LvWnEFm/LA/kbgHdn10FtJ9604qp6IApY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=uS2D+CKI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="uS2D+CKI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=9XvyWJUSOM5eV4ieBRtSFsN4pGEcp8pm1zhh04ZFATw=; b=uS2D+CKIPopKb6rIgjfm4tVtzG QeMBW3Fp8fk+PVjZ5wR1CuFkHSircRVfSkqC98oiDwIaZW3JhGLVKg1kcKRSLMAjfTdG+ZjrdlIUc smn4R7HTNUMFwqr/BPUEox0cK67EgrHn2U/TDvGZBCvUyLGDanQvcmQOOM9xoWWIuIPkEdLCDlIOj dEWXH2wnIuwKyP6JTg0e8vpF9DH5RSfho/Grs0TzVxsJyBRlEFy2ZS5A9f66ljyWYM4tkiEqC/903 TouMg4cJSvkCNXCaWTEVS2z1JlFPxocmA390s5zpckRdujmzl3wnDUqKWlyqnxTxwZG1xnK2OY/zg f9N1BvOA==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wAj4E-00000009mpj-1sUz; Thu, 09 Apr 2026 06:40:42 +0000 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 23:40:42 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jens Axboe Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Christoph =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6hmwalder?= , drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lars Ellenberg , Philipp Reisner , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] DRBD 9 rework Message-ID: References: <20260327223820.2244227-1-christoph.boehmwalder@linbit.com> 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html First an apology, I thought it was in your tree, but it looks like the drbd branch just has minor fixes. So a lot less urgency. On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 06:58:58AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > See the previous discussion, Do you have a pointer to that discussion? I can't remember one. > the goal is to sync the two drbd code > bases. It's followed the "usual" pattern of the in-kernel driver being > neglected and development and users pushed to the out-of-tree one, > which is highly annoying. I don't think that's a a usual pattern. Also the new version looks like a complete rewrite and not something incremental: 45 files changed, 45891 insertions(+), 16264 deletions(-) For a code base that is "29482 total". I think reviewing it would be easier by just adding an new drbd9 driver and then steering people toward it carefully, as that is actually reviewable compared to non-bisectable patches changing large chunks of code in a non-atomic way.