From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@aol.com>
Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Generic page write protection
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 22:09:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200122060951.GA77704@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200122055219.GC6542@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 01:52:26PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 09:21:18PM -0800, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > The block device code only need the mapping on io error and they are
> > different strategy depending on individual fs. fs using buffer_head
> > can easily be updated. For other they are different solution and they
> > can be updated one at a time with tailor solution.
>
> If I did't misunderstand, how about post-processing fs code without
> some buffer_head but page->private used as another way rather than
> a pointer? (Yes, some alternative ways exist such as hacking struct
> bio_vec...)
The ultimate answer is that page write protection will not be allow
for some filesystem (that's how the patchset is designed in fact so
that things can be merge piecemeal). But they are many way to solve
the io error reporting and that's one of the thing i would like to get
input on.
>
> I wonder the final plan on this from the community, learn new rule
> and adapt my code anyway.. But in my opinion, such reserve way
> (page->mapping likewise) is helpful in many respects, I'm not sure
> we could totally get around all cases without it elegantly...
I still need to go read what it is you are trying to achieve. But i
do not see any reason to remove page->mapping
Cheers,
Jérôme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-22 6:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-22 2:32 [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Generic page write protection jglisse
2020-01-22 4:28 ` Gao Xiang
2020-01-22 5:21 ` Jerome Glisse
2020-01-22 5:52 ` Gao Xiang
2020-01-22 6:09 ` Jerome Glisse [this message]
2020-01-22 6:21 ` Gao Xiang
2020-01-22 4:41 ` John Hubbard
2020-01-22 18:27 ` [Lsf-pc][LSF/MM/BPF " John Hubbard
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200122060951.GA77704@redhat.com \
--to=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=hsiangkao@aol.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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).