Re: [PATCH] fs: xfs: Change return type to vm_fault_t

From: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: xfs: Change return type to vm_fault_t
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 18:05:13 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFqt6za9AUAbt7g7tY7iQ2SQtgGOUZ266aym1zrm9Z5PhBvvaw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180416170329.GA5203@magnolia>

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Darrick J. Wong
<darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 04:31:39AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 04:23:53AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 04:14:23AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> > > That's an unreasonable request.  It would (usually) require writing more
>> > > code to convert errnos into VM_FAULT returns.  And that code would get
>> > > precisely zero testing upstream because the next commit would come along
>> > > and delete it, replacing it with calls to common code.
>> >
>> > Well, introduce the damn common code first.  It does not require
>> > using the typedef in any way.
>>
>> Already done.
>
> I wondered "Yeah, why isn't this one big series?  Where are the rest of
> the patches to convert everything else?" and then realized the patch
> author landed the function pointer prototype changes in mm.h prior to
> 4.17-rc1 and is now playing scattershot catch-up across the tree...
>
> ...hm, the original mm patch wasn't cc'd to fsdevel either, so that's
> probably why I never heard of any of this until now.
>
> So, uh, why wasn't this whole series (all the mm changes and all the
> required fs changes) sent out for review prior to the merge window?
>
> I don't like "Hey we bitrotted your filesystem without telling you, now
> here's a patch to fix it..."  The code change looks ok, but now I'm
> going to schedule some time to go digging to see if there's anything
> else lurking beneath the surface here.
>
>> > In this current form of single patches:  NAK to anything I maintain
>> > or review.
>>
>> Yeah, we already have a plan for dealing with arsehole or MIA maintainers.
>> Fortunately, you're not actually the maintainer for XFS, so it'll be up
>> to Darrick whether to take it or not.
>
> I also dislike being pitted against the other XFS developers.
>

Thanks Darrick. This patch is now available in linux-next-20180530.