From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:06:00 +1000 Message-ID: <20140622010600.GX9508@dastard> References: <20140520031802.GF18954@dastard> <20140613103216.GA4589@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <02d3b094-808c-4b17-903d-1280d451704b@phunq.net> <20140613202039.GA23872@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <1402932354.2197.61.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140619082129.GA4309@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> <1403378941.2177.24.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Daniel Phillips , =?utf-8?B?THVrw6HFoQ==?= Czerner , Pavel Machek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton To: James Bottomley Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1403378941.2177.24.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:29:01PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:26:48 AM PDT, Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1 Czerner = wrote: > > > Let me remind you some more important problems Dave brought up, > > > including page forking: > > > > > > " > > > The hacks around VFS and MM functionality need to have demonstra= ted > > > methods for being removed. > >=20 > > We already removed 450 lines of core kernel workarounds from Tux3 w= ith an=20 > > approach that was literally cut and pasted from one of Dave's email= s. Then=20 > > Dave changed his mind. Now the Tux3 team has been assigned a resear= ch=20 > > project to improve core kernel writeback instead of simply adapting= the=20 > > approach that is already proven to work well enough. That is a rath= er=20 > > blatant example of "perfect is the enemy of good enough". Please re= ad the=20 > > thread. >=20 > That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has always been how page forki= ng > interacted with writeback. It's not new, it was one of the major thi= ngs > brought up at LSF 14 months ago, so you weren't just assigned this. BTW, it's worth noting that reviewers are *allowed* to change their mind at any time during a discussion or during review cycles. Indeed, this occurs quite commonly. It's no different to multiple reviewers disagreeing on what the best way to make the improvement is - sometimes it takes an implementation to solidify opinion on the best approach to solving a problem. i.e. it took an implementation of the writeback hook tailored specifically to tux3's requirements to understand the best way to solve the infrastructure problem for *everyone*. This is how review is supposed to work - take an idea, and refine it into something better that works for everyone. We'd have been stuck way up the creek without a paddle a long time ago if reviewers weren't allowed to change their minds.... Cheers, Dave. --=20 Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com