From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 01:20:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160124012002.GU17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160124002658.GJ6033@dastard>
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:26:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> That's fair enough. However, compare this to how core locking
> changes occur in the mm subsystem - they go through multiple patch
> postings and review so there's no surprise when the pull request
> comes.
... and the thread in question has grown from precisely that (and not the first
iteration, either) for earlier such change (RCU symlinks). Subsequent one
(follow_link -> get_link, with RCU symlink traversal for non-embedded
symlinks) also went through fsdevel mailbombs (a couple of iterations, IIRC).
Seriously, when it comes to actual fs-visible behaviour changes (rather than
"please, try and use these helpers instead of open-coding ->i_mutex access"
done exactly to avoid the inter-tree dependencies from hell while that work
is being done) fsdevel will be hit by such mailbomb and probably more than
once.
For now it's really just a reduction of trivial conflicts for the next cycle;
eventually it's going to be a weaker VFS exclusion on ->lookup(). Which had
been loudly demanded quite a few times, and I don't recall any filesystem
developers _ever_ objecting to that.
Speaking of the earlier changes - IIRC, there had been plans to start
hashing (at least some of) XFS symlinks. I think it was from hch, along
the lines of "stash a buffer with symlink body into ->i_link the first time
around, free it from inode eviction". As long as that freeing is RCU-delayed,
doing so would work just fine and give you symlink traversal without dropping
from RCU mode... OTOH, if that gets resurrected, it probably ought to go
through XFS tree - all VFS infrastructure is there (since 4.2), so it's
purely XFS business at this point... One thing to watch out for is that
RCU delay - see shmem.c fix in the same pull request for related example.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-24 1:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-23 14:58 [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Al Viro
2016-01-23 22:34 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-23 22:44 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-23 23:09 ` Al Viro
2016-01-23 23:38 ` Al Viro
2016-01-24 0:53 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-24 1:41 ` Al Viro
2016-01-24 7:04 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-24 7:48 ` Al Viro
2016-01-23 23:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-01-24 0:26 ` Dave Chinner
2016-01-24 1:20 ` Al Viro [this message]
2016-01-24 7:17 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160124012002.GU17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).