Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:31:52AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> romfs-printk-format-warnings.patch

NACK on this one.  This bloats romfs by almost half of it's previous
size to add mtd support to it.  Given that romfs is a compltely
trivial filesystem it's much better to have a separate filesystem
driver handling the format on mtd instead of adding all these
indirections.  In addition to that argument the switch on the
underlying subsystem is done horrible.  There's lots of ifdefs instead
of proper functions pointers, there's one file containing both block
and mtd code instead of seaparate files, etc.

And the get_unmapped_area method in a bare filesystem needs a _lot_
of explanation.

Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:35 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:31:52AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > romfs-printk-format-warnings.patch
> 
> NACK on this one. 

The rest of it is nacked anyway, until we unify the point and
get_unmapped_area methods of the MTD API.

-- 
dwmw2

fallocate, Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

[Christoph Hellwig]

> fallocate-implementation-on-i86-x86_64-and-powerpc.patch
> fallocate-on-s390.patch
> fallocate-on-ia64.patch
> fallocate-on-ia64-fix.patch
> 
>  Merge.

Hopefull this will be done during the 2.6.23 merge window, but right now
it's not (yet).

Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:39:42 +0100 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:35 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:31:52AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > romfs-printk-format-warnings.patch
> > 
> > NACK on this one. 
> 
> The rest of it is nacked anyway, until we unify the point and
> get_unmapped_area methods of the MTD API.
> 

Methinks you meant
nommu-make-it-possible-for-romfs-to-use-mtd-devices.patch, not
romfs-printk-format-warnings.patch.

I'll drop nommu-make-it-possible-for-romfs-to-use-mtd-devices.patch, thamks.

Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

[Randy Dunlap]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:21:03 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:39:42 +0100 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:35 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:31:52AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > romfs-printk-format-warnings.patch
> > > 
> > > NACK on this one. 
> > 
> > The rest of it is nacked anyway, until we unify the point and
> > get_unmapped_area methods of the MTD API.
> > 
> 
> Methinks you meant
> nommu-make-it-possible-for-romfs-to-use-mtd-devices.patch, not
> romfs-printk-format-warnings.patch.
> 
> I'll drop nommu-make-it-possible-for-romfs-to-use-mtd-devices.patch, thamks.

Thanks.  I was certainly getting confused.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***

block_page_mkwrite? (Re: fault vs invalidate race (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23))

[David Chinner]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:54:57AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The fault-vs-invalidate race fix.  I have belatedly learned that these 
> > need
> > more work, so their state is uncertain.
> 
> The more work may turn out being too much for you (although it is nothing
> exactly tricky that would introduce subtle bugs, it is a fair amont of 
> churn).

OK, so does that mean we can finally get the block_page_mkwrite
patches merged?

i.e.:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117426058311032&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117426070111136&w=2

I've got up-to-date versions of them ready to go and they've been
consistently tested thanks to the XFSQA test I wrote for the bug
that it fixes. I've been holding them out-of-tree for months now
because ->fault was supposed to supercede this interface.....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group

Re: block_page_mkwrite? (Re: fault vs invalidate race (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23))

[Nick Piggin]

David Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:54:57AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>>The fault-vs-invalidate race fix.  I have belatedly learned that these 
>>>need
>>>more work, so their state is uncertain.
>>
>>The more work may turn out being too much for you (although it is nothing
>>exactly tricky that would introduce subtle bugs, it is a fair amont of 
>>churn).
> 
> 
> OK, so does that mean we can finally get the block_page_mkwrite
> patches merged?
> 
> i.e.:
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117426058311032&w=2
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117426070111136&w=2
> 
> I've got up-to-date versions of them ready to go and they've been
> consistently tested thanks to the XFSQA test I wrote for the bug
> that it fixes. I've been holding them out-of-tree for months now
> because ->fault was supposed to supercede this interface.....

Yeah, as I've said, don't hold them back because of me. They are
relatively simple enough that I don't see why they couldn't be
merged in this window.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.