From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753331Ab2LEKse (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:48:34 -0500 Received: from mondschein.lichtvoll.de ([194.150.191.11]:50282 "EHLO mail.lichtvoll.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751926Ab2LEKs3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:48:29 -0500 From: Martin Steigerwald To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, 3.7-rc7, RESEND] fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:48:27 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.7.0-rc7-f2fs-tp520+; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Dave Chinner , "Theodore Ts'o" , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org References: <1353366267-15629-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20121126025520.GC22858@thunk.org> <20121126091202.GO32450@dastard> (sfid-20121126_101746_129378_6672726D) In-Reply-To: <20121126091202.GO32450@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201212051148.28039.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 26. November 2012 schrieb Dave Chinner: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 09:55:20PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:28:14AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > fs: revert commit bbdd6808 to fallocate UAPI > > > > > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > > > Commit bbdd6808 ("fs: reserve fallocate flag codepoint") changes > > > the fallocate(2) syscall interface. The flag that is reserved by > > > this commit is for functionality that has previously been NAKed on > > > the -fsdevel mailing list, and so exists out-of-tree. > > > > Hi Linus, > > > > It doesn't change the interface or break anything; it just reserves a > > bit so that out-of-tree patches don't collide with future > > allocations. There are significant usages of this bit within Google > > and Tao Bao. It is true that there has been significant pushback > > about adding this functionality on linux-fsdevel; > > It's not the fact that you want to reserve a bit that is at issue > here - it's the way it's been pushed into the tree that is the > front-and-center issue. > > > I find it personally frustrating that > > in effect, if enough people scream, they can veto an optional feature > > that might only be implemented by a single file system. > > Having a significant portion of the wider fs development community > disagree with your patches is no reason for subverting the review > process. Besides, that's irrelevant to the issue being discussed, > unless you are describing your motives in an effort to justify your > actions. > > In fact, it's even more disturbing if this was your real motive. > That is, is sounds somewhat like you've just admitted that you > pushed this change silently through the ext4 tree to avoid review > and discussion and that you are blaming the rest of the FS community > for forcing you to take such actions. > > > It's not like there is any shortage of flag bits, so what's the harm > > of reserving the bit? > > The harm has already been done - to the trust we've placed in you as > a maintainer. To argue that the code does no harm is to completely > miss the crux of the issue at hand: principles, process and trust > are far more important in our community than a single line of > code. > > Ted, it comes down to trust. If we can't trust you not to push your > own changes to syscall APIs into the mainline tree via backdoor > channels, then how can we trust you not to push the entire > out-of-tree patch into the kernel the same way? Ping. Linus, while I am interested in an answer I think that Dave and Christoph as Linux filesystem developers actually deserve one (instead of silently being ignored which is also a decision in this matter). I did not see an answer in linux-2.6 commit log as of today so far. Thanks, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7