Re: [PATCH 1/7] Revert "mm: take i_mmap_lock in unmap_mapping_range() for DAX"

[Ross Zwisler]

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 08:32:40AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> I couldn't work out what set of commits I needed to revert to get a
> clean revert, so I just reverted the commits and hacked out the
> revert failures to what looked ok. Feel free to send me a clean set
> of reverts, and I'll replace these patches with them... :)

Will do.  I will queue the reverts in my external tree & ask Linus to pull
them into v4.3 so we don't ship with deadlocks.

> > Also, if I understood your previous mails correctly you were targeting the
> > first two revert patches for v4.3 so we get back to v4.2 level locking, and
> > the rest of the series will target v4.4, correct?  How does this work?  Do the
> > patches need to be split into two series and tested separately?
> 
> Test it and push the reverts however you like. I don't care how the
> reverts get to 4.3 - I'll be carrying them locally in my trees from
> now and so my development and testing is now unaffected by the bugs
> that are in the 4.3 code. If you aren't going to push them for 4.3
> then I'd suggest that they go to linus along with the rest of the
> XFS changes in this series.
> 
> FWIW, I'm quite happy to host all the pending DAX changes in a
> public git tree and ask for it to be included in linux-next. It's
> probably a good idea to do this because it makes it much easier to
> co-ordinate merges when we are touching multiple subsystems (ext4,
> xfs, dax, mm, etc). And it will help prevent the "patches molder on
> the list until Andrew hoovers them up" problem and so prevent this
> situation from happening in the future...

No objections from me. :)  I agree that it would be nice to have a central
home for all the DAX patches.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/