Re: [PATCH] Revert "staging: erofs: disable compiling temporarile"

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:13:02 +0800 Chao Yu <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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 <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >>>>>        https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1535076160-99466-1-git-send-email-gaoxiang25@xxxxxxxxxx/  
> >>>>
> >>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >>>  
> >>>> 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachment: pgpS5ZCmrkJZM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature