From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Amir Goldstein Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/28] fs: fixes for serious clone/dedupe problems Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 08:42:29 +0300 Message-ID: References: <154013850285.29026.16168387526580596209.stgit@magnolia> <20181022022112.GW6311@dastard> <20181022043741.GX6311@dastard> <20181022045249.GP32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20181022050851.GY6311@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181022050851.GY6311@dastard> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Cc: Al Viro , "Darrick J. Wong" , Eric Sandeen , Linux NFS Mailing List , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, overlayfs , linux-xfs , Linux MM , Linux Btrfs , linux-fsdevel , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com List-Id: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:09 AM Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 05:52:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 03:37:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > Ok, this is a bit of a mess. the patches do not merge cleanly to a > > > 4.19-rc1 base kernel because of all the changes to > > > include/linux/fs.h that have hit the tree after this. There's also > > > failures against Documentation/filesystems/fs.h > > > > > > IOWs, it's not going to get merged through the main XFS tree because > > > I don't have the patience to resolve all the patch application > > > failures, then when it comes to merge make sure all the merge > > > failures end up being resolved correctly. > > > > > > So if I take it through the XFS tree, it will being a standalone > > > branch based on 4.19-rc8 and won't hit linux-next until after the > > > first XFS merge when I can rebase the for-next branch... > > > > How many conflicts does it have with XFS tree? I can take it via > > vfs.git... > > I gave up after 4 of the first 6 or 7 patches had conflicts in vfs > and documentation code. > > There were changes that went into 4.19-rc7 that changed > {do|vfs}_clone_file_range() prototypes and this patchset hits > prototypes adjacent to that multiple times. There's also a conflicts > against a new f_ops->fadvise method. These all appear to be direct > fallout of fixes needed for all the overlay f_ops changes. > > The XFS changes at the end of the patchset are based on > commits that were merged into -rc7 and -rc8, so if you are using > -rc8 as your base, then it all merges cleanly. There are no > conflicts with the current xfs/for-next branch. > > I've just merged and built it into my test tree (-rc8, xfs/for-next, > djwong/devel) so I can test it properly, but if it merges cleanly > with the vfs tree you are building then that's probably the easiest > way to merge it all... > Dave, Pardon my ignorance, but its an opportunity for me to learn a thing or two about kernel development process. First, I asked Darrick to base his patches on top of -rc8 intentionally to avoid the conflict with "swap names of {do|vfs}_clone_file_range()" (*). My change pre dates his changes so it makes sense. What I don't get is why does it need to create a problem? Can you not back merge -rc8 into xfs/for-next (or into vfs/for-next for that matter) and then merge Darrick's patches? What is the culprit with doing that? Thanks, Amir. (*) Yes, I do realize "swap names of {do|vfs}_clone_file_range()" is a backporting landmine. It's been on my todo list to send it to Greg here I am going to do it now...