From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF23BC433F4 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:13:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EC220894 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:13:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 79EC220894 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728198AbeH1SFH (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:05:07 -0400 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32]:34651 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726998AbeH1SFH (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:05:07 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2C0A436C2F24E; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:13:12 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.134.22.195) by DGGEMS401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.399.0; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:13:04 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "staging: erofs: disable compiling temporarile" To: Greg Kroah-Hartman CC: Gao Xiang , , "Stephen Rothwell" , Miao Xie , LKML , Matthew Wilcox , "David Howells" , , References: <1535427588-69630-1-git-send-email-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> <20180828054444.GA4453@kroah.com> <0c701b3c-5553-cf4c-c0b3-ad151b84662c@huawei.com> <20180828130559.GA5427@kroah.com> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <16974cb6-2eed-7c12-9e27-c65a32b81673@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:13:02 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180828130559.GA5427@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018/8/28 21:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:56:43PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> >> On 2018/8/28 14:28, Gao Xiang wrote: >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> On 2018/8/28 13:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:39:48AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: >>>>> This reverts commit 156c3df8d4db4e693c062978186f44079413d74d. >>>>> >>>>> Since XArray and the new mount apis aren't merged in 4.19-rc1 >>>>> merge window, the BROKEN mark can be reverted directly without >>>>> any problems. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 156c3df8d4db ("staging: erofs: disable compiling temporarile") >>>>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox >>>>> Cc: David Howells >>>>> Reviewed-by: Chao Yu >>>>> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Hi Greg, >>>>> >>>>> Could you please apply this patch to enable EROFS from 4.19-rc2, thanks... >>>>> >>>>> p.s. We would like to provide a more stable EROFS when linux-4.19 is out, >>>>> and there are also two patchsets (the one is already sent out by Chao >>>>> and me, the other is previewing in linux-erofs mailing list and it will >>>>> be sent out after gathering enough testdata and feedback from community >>>>> and carefully reviewed), could you also please consider applying these >>>>> two patchsets in the later 4.19-rc (both >2, or the first patchset >>>>> could be in rc2 in advance) if it is convenient to do so, or the next >>>>> 4.20 is also ok... >>>>> >>>>> LINK: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180821144937.20555-1-chao@kernel.org/ >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1535076160-99466-1-git-send-email-gaoxiang25@huawei.com/ >>>> >>>> I applied those patch sets to my -next branch already, right? So those >>> >>> Yes, Thank you for applying those patches. :) >>> >>>> would be going into 4.20-rc1, it is time now for "bugfixes only" for >>>> 4.19-final. >>>> >>>> So perhaps we should just leave it as "BROKEN" for now for 4.19 and add >>>> this to my tree now and let people work on it for the next few months in >> >> I'm worry about that once we plan to reenable erofs in next x.xx-rc1, in the >> merge window, if there are any other features change common api or structure in >> vfs/mm/block, but related patch didn't cover erofs, that would make conflict >> with erofs. >> >> So if that happens, we can just reminder them to cover erofs? or we should >> handle this by just delay removing 'BROKEN' state? >> >> Thanks, >> >>>> linux-next so that 4.20 has a solid base to start with? >>>> >>> >>> EROFS is be marked as "BROKEN" just because of conflict with >>> XArray and the new mount apis, as Stephen Rothwell suggested in >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180802010705.24a72730@canb.auug.org.au/ >>> >>>> It might be easiest for Greg to add the disabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS patch >>>> to the staging tree itself for his first pull request during the merge >>>> window and then send a second pull request (after the vfs and maybe the >>>> Xarray stuff has been merged by Linus) with these patches followed by a >>>> revert of the disabling patch. >>> >>> But these two features was still discussing in the mailing list even at the >>> last time of 4.19-rc1 merge window. I cannot decide whether they were eventually >>> get merged in 4.19 or not. But it seems that it is regretful that linux-4.19 >>> is out without XArray and the new mount apis. >>> >>> Therefore, I think EROFS should work for linux-4.19 without any modification >>> if just revert the BROKEN mark. > > Ok, you are right, I'll go apply this. > >>> EROFS works fine with the 4.19-rc1 code except that it has some __GFP_NOFAIL >>> and BUG_ONs on error handling paths and very rarely race between memory >>> reclaiming and decompression... :( I personally think it is complete enough >>> for people to test since it is an independent and staging filesystem driver (no >>> other influence...) Anyway, removing EROFS BROKEN mark at 4.20 is also ok of course... >>> >>> On the other head, if XArray and the new mount apis is still pending for 4.20, >>> should EROFS uses the same policy as Stephen suggested? I have no idea how to do next... > > As the code is now part of the common tree that everyone works off of, > any filesystem changes that happen will normally cover erofs as well. > So this shouldn't be an issue anymore. Thanks very much for the help and explanation, we will keep an eye on those vfs changes. :) Thanks, > > thanks, > > greg k-h > > . >