Re: [ANNOUNCE] work tree for untorn filesystem writes

Jens Axboe
2024-11-05T15:54:42Z

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.

--
Jens Axboe