From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E11C43381 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535B82077B for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:52:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1552427542; bh=ng/07YWOnNdmXJEMpq4aJq3vqE4XAZcZUlAhcC5+G0g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=EMhxLutHLbzavoadKCk22ex5PyRzzOc0wi2ygy7unYXk1hUjsoMutO7dJAKThFi7+ 3tqETp2VqnMS+o8v6LNRN8OIvzChoTkFFGGSc2PRtpzx+Wixt4wyko4vNaXYhVK3AO 6OqrzUo7OCAHOloL3fYBy8yj0OMtyP19ritQSQe4= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726552AbfCLVwQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 17:52:16 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34892 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726435AbfCLVwQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 17:52:16 -0400 Received: from akpm3.svl.corp.google.com (unknown [104.133.8.65]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60C34CBA; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:52:14 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Dan Williams Cc: Jerome Glisse , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ralph Campbell , John Hubbard , linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] mm/hmm: allow to mirror vma of a file on a DAX backed filesystem Message-Id: <20190312145214.9c8f0381cf2ff2fc2904e2d8@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20190131041641.GK5061@redhat.com> <20190305141635.8134e310ba7187bc39532cd3@linux-foundation.org> <20190307094654.35391e0066396b204d133927@linux-foundation.org> <20190307185623.GD3835@redhat.com> <20190312152551.GA3233@redhat.com> <20190312190606.GA15675@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.6.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:30:52 -0700 Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:06 PM Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 09:06:12AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:26 AM Jerome Glisse wrote: > [..] > > > > Spirit of the rule is better than blind application of rule. > > > > > > Again, I fail to see why HMM is suddenly unable to make forward > > > progress when the infrastructure that came before it was merged with > > > consumers in the same development cycle. > > > > > > A gate to upstream merge is about the only lever a reviewer has to > > > push for change, and these requests to uncouple the consumer only > > > serve to weaken that review tool in my mind. > > > > Well let just agree to disagree and leave it at that and stop > > wasting each other time > > I'm fine to continue this discussion if you are. Please be specific > about where we disagree and what aspect of the proposed rules about > merge staging are either acceptable, painful-but-doable, or > show-stoppers. Do you agree that HMM is doing something novel with > merge staging, am I off base there? You're correct. We chose to go this way because the HMM code is so large and all-over-the-place that developing it in a standalone tree seemed impractical - better to feed it into mainline piecewise. This decision very much assumed that HMM users would definitely be merged, and that it would happen soon. I was skeptical for a long time and was eventually persuaded by quite a few conversations with various architecture and driver maintainers indicating that these HMM users would be forthcoming. In retrospect, the arrival of HMM clients took quite a lot longer than was anticipated and I'm not sure that all of the anticipated usage sites will actually be using it. I wish I'd kept records of who-said-what, but I didn't and the info is now all rather dissipated. So the plan didn't really work out as hoped. Lesson learned, I would now very much prefer that new HMM feature work's changelogs include links to the driver patchsets which will be using those features and acks and review input from the developers of those driver patchsets.