From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elifarley Callado Coelho Cruz Subject: Re: xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 10:47:44 -0300 Message-ID: References: <55423732.2070509@phunq.net> <55423C05.1000506@symas.com> <554246D7.40105@phunq.net> <20150511221223.GD4434@amd> <20150511231714.GD14088@thunk.org> <555166BA.1050606@phunq.net> <20150512053842.GH15721@dastard> <55519B49.8040605@phunq.net> <555268A2.4090203@phunq.net> <20150513072053.GB19700@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0391769099==" Cc: David Lang , Theodore Ts'o , Howard Chu , Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith , tux3@tux3.org, Daniel Phillips , OGAWA Hirofumi To: Pavel Machek Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150513072053.GB19700@amd> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tux3-bounces@phunq.net Sender: "Tux3" List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org --===============0391769099== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113817fc71e57c0515f6ddf1 --001a113817fc71e57c0515f6ddf1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 May I suggest a very relevant reading to all, even though the subject is not file systems nor kernel development: Rogerian Argument - Solving Problems by Negotiating Differences (academic writing; psychology) http://writingcommons.org/open-text/genres/academic-writing/arguments/318-rogerian-argument Besides, I thinks everyone would benefit a lot more if most (if not ALL) of emotionally loaded sentences were simply omitted from technical discussions. Please don't use words like "crowing", "stinky" and so on. I mean, what kind of technical advance can be achieved by using that ? Instead of "stinky", say "your argument is false because [then provide the minimum set of accurate logical details needed to get your point across, nothing more, nothing else]" Appeal to rubber ducking instead if you really need to vent. I think all of this is valid for any technical discussion. Elifarley Cruz - " Do not believe anything because it is said by an authority, or if it is said to come from angels, or from Gods, or from an inspired source. Believe it only if you have explored it in your own heart and mind and body and found it to be true. Work out your own path, through diligence." - Gautama Buddha On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2015-05-12 13:54:58, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On 05/12/2015 11:39 AM, David Lang wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > >>> ...it's the mm and core kernel developers that need to > > >>> review and accept that code *before* we can consider merging tux3. > > >> > > >> Please do not say "we" when you know that I am just as much a "we" > > >> as you are. Merging Tux3 is not your decision. The people whose > > >> decision it actually is are perfectly capable of recognizing your > > >> agenda for what it is. > > >> > > >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA0NzM > > >> "XFS Developer Takes Shots At Btrfs, EXT4" > > > > > > umm, Phoronix has no input on what gets merged into the kernel. they > also hae a reputation for > > > trying to turn anything into click-bait by making it sound like a > fight when it isn't. > > > > Perhaps you misunderstood. Linus decides what gets merged. Andrew > > decides. Greg decides. Dave Chinner does not decide, he just does > > his level best to create the impression that our project is unfit > > to merge. Any chance there might be an agenda? > > Dunno. _Your_ agenda seems to be "attack other maintainers so much > that you can later claim they are biased". > > Not going to work, sorry. > > > > As Dave says above, it's not the other filesystem people you have to > convince, it's the core VFS and > > > Memory Mangement folks you have to convince. You may need a little > benchmarking to show that there > > > is a real advantage to be gained, but the real discussion is going to > be on the impact that page > > > forking is going to have on everything else (both in complexity and in > performance impact to other > > > things) > > > > Yet he clearly wrote "we" as if he believes he is part of it. > > > > Now that ENOSPC is done to a standard way beyond what Btrfs had > > when it was merged, the next item on the agenda is writeback. That > > involves us and VFS people as you say, and not Dave Chinner, who > > only intends to obstruct the process as much as he possibly can. He > > Why would he do that? Aha, maybe because you keep attacking him all > the time. Or maybe because your code is not up to the kernel > standards. You want to claim it is the former, but it really looks > like the latter. > > Just stop doing that. You are not creating nice atmosphere and you are > not getting tux3 being merged in any way. > > > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) > http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html > > _______________________________________________ > Tux3 mailing list > Tux3@phunq.net > http://phunq.net/mailman/listinfo/tux3 > --001a113817fc71e57c0515f6ddf1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
May I suggest a very relevant r= eading to all, even though the subject is not file systems nor kernel devel= opment:

Rogerian Argument - Solving Problems by Negotiating Differences (academic= writing; psychology)
http://writingcommons.org/open-text/genres/academic-writing/arg= uments/318-rogerian-argument

Besides, I thinks everyone would benefit a l= ot more if most (if not ALL) of emotionally loaded sentences were simply om= itted from technical discussions.

Please don't use words like "crowing&q= uot;, "stinky" and so on. I mean, what kind of technical advance = can be achieved by using that ?

<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">Instead of "stinky", say "your arg= ument is false because [then provide the minimum set of accurate logical de= tails needed to get your point across, nothing more, nothing else]"

Appeal t= o rubber ducking instead if you really need to vent.

I think all of this is valid= for any technical discussion.


Elifarley = Cruz
-

=C2=A0" Do not believe anything because it is said by= an authority, or if it=C2=A0 is said to come from angels, or from Gods, or= from an inspired source.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Believe it only if you have explored = it in your own heart and mind and body and found it to be true.=C2=A0 Work = out your own path, through diligence."
- Gautama Buddha
=


<= br>
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Pavel Machek= <pa= vel@ucw.cz> wrote:
On Tu= e 2015-05-12 13:54:58, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On 05/12/2015 11:39 AM, David Lang wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >>> ...it's the mm and core kernel developers that need t= o
> >>> review and accept that code *before* we can consider merg= ing tux3.
> >>
> >> Please do not say "we" when you know that I am just= as much a "we"
> >> as you are. Merging Tux3 is not your decision. The people who= se
> >> decision it actually is are perfectly capable of recognizing = your
> >> agenda for what it is.
> >>
> >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0http://www.phoronix.com/sc= an.php?page=3Dnews_item&px=3DMTA0NzM
> >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0"XFS Developer Takes Shots At Btrfs, EXT4&qu= ot;
> >
> > umm, Phoronix has no input on what gets merged into the kernel. t= hey also hae a reputation for
> > trying to turn anything into click-bait by making it sound like a= fight when it isn't.
>
> Perhaps you misunderstood. Linus decides what gets merged. Andrew
> decides. Greg decides. Dave Chinner does not decide, he just does
> his level best to create the impression that our project is unfit
> to merge. Any chance there might be an agenda?

Dunno. _Your_ agenda seems to be "attack other maintainers so m= uch
that you can later claim they are biased".

Not going to work, sorry.

> > As Dave says above, it's not the other filesystem people you = have to convince, it's the core VFS and
> > Memory Mangement folks you have to convince. You may need a littl= e benchmarking to show that there
> > is a real advantage to be gained, but the real discussion is goin= g to be on the impact that page
> > forking is going to have on everything else (both in complexity a= nd in performance impact to other
> > things)
>
> Yet he clearly wrote "we" as if he believes he is part of it= .
>
> Now that ENOSPC is done to a standard way beyond what Btrfs had
> when it was merged, the next item on the agenda is writeback. That
> involves us and VFS people as you say, and not Dave Chinner, who
> only intends to obstruct the process as much as he possibly can. He
Why would he do that? Aha, maybe because you keep attacking him all<= br> the time. Or maybe because your code is not up to the kernel
standards. You want to claim it is the former, but it really looks
like the latter.

Just stop doing that. You are not creating nice atmosphere and you are
not getting tux3 being merged in any way.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel= /picture/horses/blog.html

__________________________________= _____________
Tux3 mailing list
Tux3@phunq.net
http:/= /phunq.net/mailman/listinfo/tux3

--001a113817fc71e57c0515f6ddf1-- --===============0391769099== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Tux3 mailing list Tux3@phunq.net http://phunq.net/mailman/listinfo/tux3 --===============0391769099==--