Re: [RFC PATCH 60/62] orangefs: make use of ->free_inode()

Mike Marshall
2019-04-22T23:17:59Z

Hi Linus and Al...

I just wanted Al to know I tested his patch and acked it and that it
there would be
a conflict if our pagecache code got pulled... I wasn't suggesting that I
should get that one part of Al's patch pulled...

>> I can easily handle any trivial conflicts this causes...

Thanks :-)

-Mike

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:10 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 02:56:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:14 PM Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I applied your "new inode method: ->free_inode()" and
> > > "orangefs: make use of ->free_inode()" to our pagecache
> > > branch (I hope to get it pulled in the next merge window).
> >
> > Actually, please don't.
> >
> > Exactly because this needs that common vfs patch, I'd really prefer to
> > get it all through Al's tree, rather than have individual filesystems
> > apply their own copies of the common infrastructure commit, and then
> > apply their changes on top of that.
> >
> > I can easily handle any trivial conflicts this causes, so that's not a
> > reason to have each filesystem do it either.
> >
> > So if this is at the top of your tree, can you just "git reset" it
> > away and I'll get all the filesystems (and the common infrastructure
> > commit) all together from Al.
>
> What's more, seeing the changes in orangefs tree I would rather have
> static void orangefs_free_inode(struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct orangefs_inode_s *orangefs_inode = ORANGEFS_I(inode);
> kmem_cache_free(orangefs_inode_cache, orangefs_inode);
> }
>
> in that series; not only less noise on merge, but with additional
> uses of orangefs_inode in the body from orangefs tree changes
> keeping the local variable clearly makes sense...