From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E5CC433DB for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:59:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF2664EA1 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:59:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231761AbhBAQ7M (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Feb 2021 11:59:12 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:42096 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231751AbhBAQ7K (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Feb 2021 11:59:10 -0500 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 7D2AE68AFE; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:58:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:58:25 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, avi@scylladb.com, Dave Chinner Subject: Re: reduce sub-block DIO serialisation v4 Message-ID: <20210201165825.GB9858@lst.de> References: <20210122162043.616755-1-hch@lst.de> <20210123185706.GG1282159@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210123185706.GG1282159@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 10:57:06AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:20:32PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > This takes the approach from Dave, but adds a new flag instead of abusing > > the nowait one, and keeps a simpler calling convention for iomap_dio_rw. > > Hm. I realized while putting together for-next branches that I really > would have preferred the three iomap patches at the start so that I > could push those parts through the iomap tree. The changes required to > resequence the series is minor and the iomap changes (AFAICT) are inert > if the calling fs doesn't set IOMAP_DIO_OVERWRITE_ONLY, so I think it's > low risk to push the iomap changes into iomap-for-next as a 5.12 thing. > > The rest of the xfs patches in this series would form the basis of a > second week pull request (or not) since I think I ought to evaluate the > effects on performance for a little longer. So that is the reason why they aren't in for-next yet? Or do you want the remaining patches resent on top of the iomap branch?