Hi all, On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:44:03 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:13:02 +0800 Chao Yu wrote: > > > > On 2018/8/28 21:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:56:43PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > > >> > > >> On 2018/8/28 14:28, Gao Xiang wrote: > > >>> > > >>> 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. :) > > Unfortunately, those vfs changes are still in the vfs tree in > linux-next and cause a build failure in the erofs code. I have > disabled the build of erofs again for today. > > Dave, Al, it would be good if you could add a patch/revise the series > that adds the necessary erofs changes. I still have to disable erofs ..... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell