From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [89.208.246.23]) (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 DA7161ACE0F; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:37:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=89.208.246.23 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726681059; cv=none; b=rBxQU9EjI2IkBNUqlkUTjJOwrkj1AkG1aX/Gx5uYWmrjIllLRFiPTYgSvO0QVaYWMniJJkpsrQ+bdnmuu0pkm0t1D+56dUK7eqoRze3vdQoJYLSyMEi6UPkq8hdjdk25GYn6puHJQNaHA1B4joOQIaK0qngfMGZYPMfFEA1aXsI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726681059; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x6a9qKFLvX/aGnfBYKfM9DQiX8cWjFgFDnY2gUiCamY=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ZsbVpLKA5BFEYEpkirwd9ZShvc0lBsACd1gj3yvpfHx2misjQjbXklIXdfVsCSvX3iXrmQ0nyGPstSA4FSHpJnAFY0CSxL18r1cM9MlgEhKLo+mqoZ8XM/1F+aR3jB1Ihw4U0TSLm6nOKOwjKlA2Tujq7Qy4nhzV4O1qPeD9e7A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=xry111.site header.i=@xry111.site header.b=evW3ipSI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=89.208.246.23 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=xry111.site header.i=@xry111.site header.b="evW3ipSI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xry111.site; s=default; t=1726681049; bh=HiN283smGOusDIKumV2o/43vk/NIxFGIxKHKPXdYaS4=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=evW3ipSIshhP18SYOD/PzCxn9xJEBdY4s9ZKEdTHemE8ALoBC/UTlN/EpIpgz07JO brdgtdNkElqxK5kaW0tWvO9Tt2I35ztnwJuXbRrJ8J7OE6zKCpQ06Z83C7D90RfKkM w/tsvI8tKx/HPw5M35zkfTiP874Mh/11hpkjI81o= Received: from [IPv6:240e:358:1198:0:dc73:854d:832e:2] (unknown [IPv6:240e:358:1198:0:dc73:854d:832e:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26AFF66F17; Wed, 18 Sep 2024 13:37:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Backport statx(..., NULL, AT_EMPTY_PATH, ...) From: Xi Ruoyao To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , shankerwangmiao@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Mateusz Guzik , Christian Brauner , Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , Miguel Ojeda , Alex Gaynor , Wedson Almeida Filho , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron , Benno Lossin , Andreas Hindborg , Alice Ryhl , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 01:37:17 +0800 In-Reply-To: <2024091801-segment-lurk-e67b@gregkh> References: <20240918-statx-stable-linux-6-10-y-v1-0-8364a071074f@gmail.com> <2024091801-segment-lurk-e67b@gregkh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.3 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, 2024-09-18 at 19:33 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:01:18PM +0800, Miao Wang via B4 Relay wrote: > > Commit 0ef625bba6fb ("vfs: support statx(..., NULL, AT_EMPTY_PATH, > > ...)") added support for passing in NULL when AT_EMPTY_PATH is given, > > improving performance when statx is used for fetching stat informantion > > from a given fd, which is especially important for 32-bit platforms. > > This commit also improved the performance when an empty string is given > > by short-circuiting the handling of such paths. > >=20 > > This series is based on the commits in the Linus=E2=80=99 tree. Sligth > > modifications are applied to the context of the patches for cleanly > > applying. > >=20 > > Tested-by: Xi Ruoyao > > Signed-off-by: Miao Wang >=20 > This really looks like a brand new feature wanting to be backported, so > why does it qualify under the stable kernel rules as fixing something? >=20 > I am willing to take some kinds of "fixes performance issues" new > features when the subsystem maintainers agree and ask for it, but that > doesn't seem to be the case here, and so without their approval and > agreement that this is relevant, we can't accept them. Unfortunately the performance issue fix and the new feature are in the same commit. Is it acceptable to separate out the performance fix part for stable? (Basically remove "if (!path) return true;" from the 1st patch.) --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University