From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583387CA0 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:44:40 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2B28F8050 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 7HqJfjQVG8ppcYfz for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:44:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:44:32 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/16] xfs: first part of rmapbt functionality Message-ID: <20160310214432.GX30721@dastard> References: <1457410578-30233-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20160310141434.GA29058@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160310141434.GA29058@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 06:14:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:16:02PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > This isn't all of the rmap functionality. It's patches up to the > > point where I've come across the first piece that needs to be > > reworked (the rmap intent execution code), so there's no point > > holding these back until I've sorted that out. This builds on top of > > for-next and the patch set I posted yesterday. > > > > Darrick, I've changed the authorship of the patches to reflect > > the original series this has come from - can you check to see if > > there's anything I got wrong when I did that? > > I'll come some minor bits on the actual patches, but I'd like to > understand a few fundamental things first: > > For one Darrick has introduced a new rmapxbt btree recently, which > allows using a rmap on reflink enabled file systems. In his tree > we thus have two different implementation of a reverse mapping > btree. Is there any good reason to keep it this way? For one > reflinks are a compelling feature that I doubt people want to > disable in the long run, so most filesystem will be using rmapxbt. > I also don't think having these two implementations is good for the > testing matrix in the long run. I haven't got as far as the rmapxbt code yet - it's currently at the end of the entire series, and I'm trying to sort out problems in infrastructure right now (i.e. rmapbt modifications are atomic and crash safe w.r.t. bmapbt changes and EFI processing). I'm planning on re-ordering the rmapxbt and interval query tree stuff to before the reflink code is included, but I haven't got hatfar yet so I haven't looked at the code yet. It's slow going, and right now I don't think I'm going to have even a complete rmapbt series done in time for the merge 4.6 merge window, let alone all the extra stuff Darrick has done. So with only a couple of days left before the merge window opens, I think this all needs to slip to the next merge window while we sort out what disk format we are going to use and rework the series to introduce only that format. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs