Re: [ANNOUNCE] work tree for untorn filesystem writes

Carlos Maiolino
2024-11-07T13:38:58Z

On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 11:40:00AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:54:40AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 11/5/24 8:40 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:11:52AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >> On 11/5/24 8:08 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 05:52:05AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Why is this so difficult to grasp? It's a pretty common method for
> > >>>> cross subsystem work - it avoids introducing conflicts when later
> > >>>> work goes into each subsystem, and freedom of either side to send a
> > >>>> PR before the other.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So please don't start committing the patches again, it'll just cause
> > >>>> duplicate (and empty) commits in Linus's tree.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jens, what's going on is that in order to test untorn (aka "atomic"
> > >>> although that's a bit of a misnomer) writes, changes are needed in the
> > >>> block, vfs, and ext4 or xfs git trees. So we are aware that you had
> > >>> taken the block-related patches into the block tree. What Darrick has
> > >>> done is to apply the the vfs patches on top of the block commits, and
> > >>> then applied the ext4 and xfs patches on top of that.
> > >>
> > >> And what I'm saying is that is _wrong_. Darrick should be pulling the
> > >> branch that you cut from my email:
> > >>
> > >> for-6.13/block-atomic
> > >>
> > >> rather than re-applying patches. At least if the intent is to send that
> > >> branch to Linus. But even if it's just for testing, pretty silly to have
> > >> branches with duplicate commits out there when the originally applied
> > >> patches can just be pulled in.
> > >
> > > I *did* start my branch at the end of your block-atomic branch.
> > >
> > > Notice how the commits I added yesterday have a parent commitid of
> > > 1eadb157947163ca72ba8963b915fdc099ce6cca, which is the head of your
> > > for-6.13/block-atomic branch?
> >
> > Ah that's my bad, I didn't see a merge commit, so assumed it was just
> > applied on top. Checking now, yeah it does look like it's done right!
> > Would've been nicer on top of current -rc and with a proper merge
> > commit, but that's really more of a style preference. Though -rc1 is
> > pretty early...
> >
> > > But, it's my fault for not explicitly stating that I did that. One of
> > > the lessons I apparently keep needing to learn is that senior developers
> > > here don't actually pull and examine the branches I link to in my emails
> > > before hitting Reply All to scold. You obviously didn't.
> >
> > I did click the link, in my defense it was on the phone this morning.
> > And this wasn't meant as a scolding, nor do I think my wording really
> > implies any scolding. My frustration was that I had explained this
> > previously, and this seemed like another time to do the exact same. So
> > my apologies if it came off like that, was not the intent.
>
> Fwiw, I pulled the branch that Darrick provided into vfs.untorn.writes
> and it all looks sane to me.
>

Sounds good, will you submit a pull-request from it or shall I still submit the
remaining ones to Linus?

Carlos