linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Daniel Phillips <daniel@phunq.net>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:25:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1402932354.2197.61.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b67e55e1-af54-4f34-802c-95749771aca4@phunq.net>

On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 14:41 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >> Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >  ...
> >
> > Actually, would it make sense to have staging/fs/?
> 
> That makes sense to me, if a suitably expert and nonaligned maintainer can 
> be found

Really? We're at the passive aggressive implication that everyone's
against you now?  Can we get back to the technical discussion, please?

>  to sign up for a ridiculous amount of largely thankless, but 
> perhaps fascinating work. Any volunteers?

The whole suggestion is a non starter: we can't stage core API changes.
Even if we worked out how to do that, the staging trees mostly don't get
the type of in-depth expert review that you need anyway.

The Cardinal concern has always been the viability page forking and its
impact on writeback  ... and since writeback is our most difficult an
performance sensitive area, the bar to changing it is high.

When you presented page forking at LSF/MM in 2013, it didn't even stand
up to basic scrutiny before people found unresolved problems:

http://lwn.net/Articles/548091/

After lots of prodding, you finally coughed up a patch for discussion:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/85619

But then that petered out again.  I can't emphasise enough that
iterating these threads to a conclusion and reposting interface
suggestions is the way to proceed on this ... as far as I can tell from
the discussion, the reviewers were making helpful suggestions, even if
they didn't like the original interface you proposed.

James



  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-16 15:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-17  0:50 [RFC] Tux3 for review Daniel Phillips
2014-05-17  5:09 ` Martin Steigerwald
2014-05-17  5:29   ` Daniel Phillips
2014-05-20  6:56     ` Daniel Phillips
2014-05-18 23:55 ` Dave Chinner
2014-05-20  0:55   ` Daniel Phillips
2014-05-20  3:18     ` Dave Chinner
2014-05-20  5:41       ` Daniel Phillips
2014-05-20 17:25         ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-13 10:32       ` Pavel Machek
2014-06-13 17:49         ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-13 20:20           ` Pavel Machek
2014-06-15 21:41             ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-16 15:25               ` James Bottomley [this message]
2014-06-19  8:21                 ` Pavel Machek
2014-06-19  9:26                   ` Lukáš Czerner
2014-06-19 21:58                     ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-21 19:29                       ` James Bottomley
2014-06-22  1:06                         ` Dave Chinner
2014-06-24 11:16                           ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-22  3:32                         ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-22 14:43                           ` James Bottomley
     [not found]                             ` <522aee97-34e7-4adc-adf2-c9b73aa0ef36@phunq.net>
2014-06-24  4:41                               ` James Bottomley
2014-06-24  9:10                                 ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-24 10:59                                   ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-06-24 11:27                                     ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-24 11:52                                       ` James Bottomley
2014-06-24 12:10                                         ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-22 18:34                           ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-06-24  0:31                             ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-24  0:19                         ` Daniel Phillips
2014-05-22  9:52     ` Dongsu Park
2014-05-23  8:21       ` Daniel Phillips
2014-06-19 16:24 ` Josef Bacik
2014-06-19 22:14   ` Daniel Phillips

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=1402932354.2197.61.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com \
    --to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=daniel@phunq.net \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=torvalds@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).