From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 24A07C8E1 for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 01:35:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716255320; cv=none; b=NcCmLQz/nnZSGjOiM3z6xXXBlunOKuO9Lu4P7beIK72uf4NgpRqmvT5B2+wz//OymUiG1XswNPdhxN+n/OXxYyTj1zCw/BLb2ktrwJNTjiTv6yfy5wMpMWQxVmApGJN86czl4qTd1J/kOXekVgBFwnakT8hdeLMH4rxVpmFqzcE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716255320; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GZvg6qIVVRe4Tn0OqMp/t+emZBIh8LVggvkdXbw2s3Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=d/1bBY0qxAWOdD3fCUBEdEfxAbNfaaFj4wBOQO87YGtrph9Wu7jhWiDUSHu3acvP0AGmrH5d2jn7CdA4idKeeWcekqN/cYHojrRLDhGT2oyIpDXeEnQI22N7GUIKRESKhCQWcw/l8i+Pj34q0xzZ3qzvRoA0d+E4dC9NBXUfwkc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=EsxrTMEo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="EsxrTMEo" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org (pool-173-48-113-2.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.113.2]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 44L1Yl4a002946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 May 2024 21:34:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1716255288; bh=vZnvRw73C6FL22j1ckxJCtMB5MIs3YjZkV+PCrgUi/A=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=EsxrTMEoeDCsIYqaQo3moICu8P18Fp6NyAjQC+EWhDthO44lG6CpY1UIDRoqPm5k3 a3aWB0LM8OH2AsPZkeMDs5Lz4BDVmlwLRHBbexUi0Amjv8LLj0Hd1zu/WiQB22hjmq VxbaPV+ReiCHS3a7Ek/S0E9cG3IjWtYGcaraFXNtpMbnDKxWne9O0sxV0KybV4ppSn vZWtGGWfou0eUxYxHPZOA6pzRXErV1kmKSeJbNqfvkZN0YlR+YdwxM8QBFgD/kRYdt FOOftg47nlXzGLWYTaPE4ldCutDHEbSXJE0Cz2skAX5d3MUgD/i9XKDbgcxkL7jSI0 ni1ADaMbFW5oA== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 6928D3409CD; Mon, 20 May 2024 00:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 00:58:20 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: A fs-next branch Message-ID: <20240520045820.GA1017232@mit.edu> References: <20240520132326.52392f8d@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@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: <20240520132326.52392f8d@canb.auug.org.au> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 01:23:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Tue, 14 May 2024 23:57:36 +0100 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > At LSFMM we're talking about the need to do more integrated testing with > > the various fs trees, the fs infrastructure and the vfs. We'd like to > > avoid that testing be blocked by a bad patch in, say, a graphics driver. > > > > A solution we're kicking around would be for linux-next to include a > > 'fs-next' branch which contains the trees which have opted into this > > new branch. Would this be tremendously disruptive to your workflow or > > would this be an easy addition? > > How would this be different from what happens at the moment with all > the separate file system trees and the various "vfs" trees? I can > include any tree. What we were hoping for was that you would merge together the vfs, iomap, and various fs-specific trees (e.g., bcachefs, btrfs, ext4, f2fs, xfs, etc.) together, and then publish it as "fs-next". You could then use fs-next as something that would be merged into linux-next instead of the component fs trees, so hopefully it wouldn't be a significant amount of extra work for you. As Willy stated, the advantages of having an official daily "fs-next" tree is that multiple file system developers would be able to test the same branch and compare notes when regressions are found. And the advantage of fs-next versus the full linux-next is that it reduces the chances of tests getting blocked by non-fs-relevant changes. Cheers, - Ted