From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] xfs: pass a 64-bit count argument to xfs_iomap_write_unwritten Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 07:02:22 +1100 Message-ID: <20150204200222.GN4251@dastard> References: <1421925006-24231-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1421925006-24231-17-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150129205232.GB11064@fieldses.org> <20150202073024.GA9399@lst.de> <20150202192404.GI6282@dastard> <20150202194300.GN6282@dastard> <20150204075756.GA763@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Jeff Layton , xfs-VZNHf3L845pBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150204075756.GA763-jcswGhMUV9g@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:57:56AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 06:43:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > As to the pNFSD specific changes, I haven't really looked them over > > in any great detail yet. My main concern is that there are no > > specific regression tests for this yet, I'm not sure how we go about > > verifying it actually works properly and we don't inadvertantly > > break it in the future. Christoph? > > Any chance you could review them this week so we can get them > merged in time for 3.20? In the worst case Bruce will have to pull > the xfs tree into the nfsd tree so that we have all the dependencies > available. I'm working my way through them. I'm just about to pull in the growfs transaction patch (missed it last time around), and I try to have a decent look over the other two patches later today. I'm not sure I have any bandwidth to test them yet, but perhaps if I add a one-time message "Experimental feature in use" when the code is first executed then it will be OK to merge (i.e. process similar to delayed logging and CRC introduction). Once we've got more confidence that it's all working properly, then we can remove the experimental tag from it. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to take? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david-FqsqvQoI3Ljby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5B67F6A for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:03:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18851AC004 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 12:03:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id XXe4TTZhTKecaZoo for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:03:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 07:02:22 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] xfs: pass a 64-bit count argument to xfs_iomap_write_unwritten Message-ID: <20150204200222.GN4251@dastard> References: <1421925006-24231-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1421925006-24231-17-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150129205232.GB11064@fieldses.org> <20150202073024.GA9399@lst.de> <20150202192404.GI6282@dastard> <20150202194300.GN6282@dastard> <20150204075756.GA763@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150204075756.GA763@lst.de> 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: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:57:56AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 06:43:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > As to the pNFSD specific changes, I haven't really looked them over > > in any great detail yet. My main concern is that there are no > > specific regression tests for this yet, I'm not sure how we go about > > verifying it actually works properly and we don't inadvertantly > > break it in the future. Christoph? > > Any chance you could review them this week so we can get them > merged in time for 3.20? In the worst case Bruce will have to pull > the xfs tree into the nfsd tree so that we have all the dependencies > available. I'm working my way through them. I'm just about to pull in the growfs transaction patch (missed it last time around), and I try to have a decent look over the other two patches later today. I'm not sure I have any bandwidth to test them yet, but perhaps if I add a one-time message "Experimental feature in use" when the code is first executed then it will be OK to merge (i.e. process similar to delayed logging and CRC introduction). Once we've got more confidence that it's all working properly, then we can remove the experimental tag from it. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to take? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:36998 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161186AbbBDUCh (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:02:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 07:02:22 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] xfs: pass a 64-bit count argument to xfs_iomap_write_unwritten Message-ID: <20150204200222.GN4251@dastard> References: <1421925006-24231-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1421925006-24231-17-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150129205232.GB11064@fieldses.org> <20150202073024.GA9399@lst.de> <20150202192404.GI6282@dastard> <20150202194300.GN6282@dastard> <20150204075756.GA763@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150204075756.GA763@lst.de> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:57:56AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 06:43:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > As to the pNFSD specific changes, I haven't really looked them over > > in any great detail yet. My main concern is that there are no > > specific regression tests for this yet, I'm not sure how we go about > > verifying it actually works properly and we don't inadvertantly > > break it in the future. Christoph? > > Any chance you could review them this week so we can get them > merged in time for 3.20? In the worst case Bruce will have to pull > the xfs tree into the nfsd tree so that we have all the dependencies > available. I'm working my way through them. I'm just about to pull in the growfs transaction patch (missed it last time around), and I try to have a decent look over the other two patches later today. I'm not sure I have any bandwidth to test them yet, but perhaps if I add a one-time message "Experimental feature in use" when the code is first executed then it will be OK to merge (i.e. process similar to delayed logging and CRC introduction). Once we've got more confidence that it's all working properly, then we can remove the experimental tag from it. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to take? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com