Re: [5.19 cycle] Planning and goals

[Alli <allison.henderson@oracle.com>]

On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 13:59 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:50:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 03:40:08PM -0700, Alli wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2022-04-07 at 15:49 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 08:11:06PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 12:03:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > > - Logged attributes V28 (Allison)
> > > > > > 	- I haven't looked at this since V24, so I'm not sure
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > 	  the current status is. I will do that discovery later
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > 	  the week.
> > > > > > 	- Merge criteria and status:
> > > > > > 		- review complete: Not sure
> > > So far each patch in v29 has at least 2 rvbs I think
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > > > > > 		- no regressions when not enabled: v24 was OK
> > > > > > 		- no major regressions when enabled: v24 had
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > 	- Open questions:
> > > > > > 		- not sure what review will uncover
> > > > > > 		- don't know what problems testing will show
> > > > > > 		- what other log fixes does it depend on?
> > > If it goes on top of whiteouts, it will need some modifications
> > > to
> > > follow the new log item changes that the whiteout set makes.
> > > 
> > > Alternately, if the white out set goes in after the larp set,
> > > then it
> > > will need to apply the new log item changes to xfs_attr_item.c as
> > > well
> > 
> > I figured as much, thanks for confirming!
Hi Dave, sorry I just noticed this response after I had sent out the
whiteout reviews last night

> 
> Ok, so I've just gone through the process of merging the two
> branches to see where we stand. The modifications to the log code
> that are needed for the larp code - changes to log iovec processing
> and padding - are out of date in the LARP v29 patchset.
> 
> That is, the versions that are in the intent whiteout patchset are
> much more sophisticated and cleanly separated. The version of the
> "avoid extra transactions when no intents" patch in the LARP v29
> series is really only looking at whether the transaction is dirty,
> not whether there are intents in the transactions, which is what we
> really need to know when deciding whether to commit the transaction
> or not.
Ok, so it sounds like patch 2 of the larp set needs to be dropped then

> 
> There are also a bunch of log iovec changes buried in patch 4 of the
> LARP patchset which is labelled as "infrastructure". Those changes
> are cleanly split out as patch 1 in the intent whiteout patchset and
> provide the xlog_calc_vec_len() function that the LARP code needs.
> 
Ok, I will see if I can separate those out then

> As such, the RVBs on the patches in the LARPv29 series don't carry
> over to the patches in the intent whiteout series - they are just
> too different for that to occur.
> 
> The additional changes needed to support intent whiteouts are
> relatively straight forward for the attri/attrd items, so at this
> point I'd much prefer that the two patchsets are ordered "intent
> whiteouts" then "LARP".
Alrighty then, sounds good.

> 
> I've pushed the compose I just processed to get most of the pending
> patchsets as they stand into topic branches and onto test machines
> out to kernel.org. Have a look at:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git xfs-
> 5.19-compose
Ok, I will take a look at this, I had not noticed it last night

> 
> to see how I merged everything and maybe give it a run through your
> test cycle to see if there's anything I broke when LARP is
> enabled....

Great, thanks!
Allison

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.