archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <>
To: David Howells <>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <>,
	Jeff Layton <>,
	David Wysochanski <>,
	Anna Schumaker <>,
	Trond Myklebust <>,
	Steve French <>,
	Dominique Martinet <>,
	Alexander Viro <>,,,, CIFS <>,
	linux-fsdevel <>,
	"open list:NFS, SUNRPC, AND..." <>,,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] fscache: I/O API modernisation and netfs helper library
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 12:43:19 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:33 AM David Howells <> wrote:
> Then I could follow it up with this patch here, moving towards dropping the
> PG_fscache alias for the new API.

So I don't mind the alias per se, but I did mind the odd mixing of
names for the same thing.

So I think your change to make it be named "wait_on_page_private_2()"
fixed that mixing, but I also think that it's probably then a good
idea to have aliases in place for filesystems that actually include
the fscache.h header.

Put another way: I think that it would be even better to simply just
have a function like

   static inline void wait_on_page_fscache(struct page *page)
        if (PagePrivate2(page))
                wait_on_page_bit(page, PG_private_2);

and make that be *not* in <linux/pagemap.h>, but simply be in
<linux/fscache.h> under that big comment about how PG_private_2 is
used for the fscache bit. You already have that comment, putting the
above kind of helper function right there would very much explain why
a "wait for fscache bit" function then uses the PagePrivate2 function
to test the bit. Agreed?

Alternatively, since that header file already has

    #define PageFsCache(page)               PagePrivate2((page))

you could also just write the above as

   static inline void wait_on_page_fscache(struct page *page)
        if (PageFsCache(page))
                wait_on_page_bit(page, PG_fscache);

and now it is even more obvious. And there's no odd mixing of
"fscache" and "private_2", it's all consistent.

IOW, I'm not against "wait_on_page_fscache()" as a function, but I
*am* against the odd _mixing_ of things without a big explanation,
where the code itself looks very odd and questionable.

And I think the "fscache" waiting functions should not be visible to
any core VM or filesystem code - it should be limited explicitly to
those filesystems that use fscache, and include that header file.

Wouldn't that make sense?

Also, honestly, I really *REALLY* want your commit messages to talk
about who has been cc'd, who has been part of development, and point
that I can actually see that "yes, other people were involved"

No, I don't require this in general, but exactly because of the
history we have, I really really want to see that. I want to see a


and the Cc's - or better yet, the Reviewed-by's etc - so that when I
get a pull request, it really is very obvious to me when I look at it
that others really have been involved.

So if I continue to see just

    Signed-off-by: David Howells <>

at the end of the commit messages, I will not pull.

Yes, in this thread a couple of people have piped up and said that
they were part of the discussion and that they are interested, but if
I have to start asking around just to see that, then it's too little,
too late.

No more of this "it looks like David Howells did things in private". I
want links I can follow to see the discussion, and I really want to
see that others really have been involved.



  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-10 20:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-09 16:09 [GIT PULL] fscache: I/O API modernisation and netfs helper library David Howells
2021-02-09 19:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-02-09 19:45   ` Jeff Layton
2021-02-09 20:21   ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-02-09 21:19     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-02-09 21:55     ` David Howells
2021-02-10 16:36     ` David Howells
2021-02-09 21:25   ` David Howells
2021-02-09 22:42   ` David Wysochanski
2021-02-09 21:10 ` David Howells
2021-02-10 16:29 ` David Howells
2021-02-10 16:33 ` David Howells
2021-02-10 20:43   ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2021-02-11 22:38   ` David Howells
2021-02-11 23:20   ` David Howells
2021-02-12 16:40     ` David Wysochanski
2021-02-13  1:05     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-02-15  0:22     ` David Howells
2021-02-15  1:01       ` Linus Torvalds

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).