Re: [PATCHSETS] v14 fsdax-rmap + v11 fsdax-reflink

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 09:20:57PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:29 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 10 May 2022 18:55:50 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > It'll need to be a stable branch somewhere, but I don't think it
> > > > really matters where al long as it's merged into the xfs for-next
> > > > tree so it gets filesystem test coverage...
> > >
> > > So how about let the notify_failure() bits go through -mm this cycle,
> > > if Andrew will have it, and then the reflnk work has a clean v5.19-rc1
> > > baseline to build from?
> >
> > What are we referring to here?  I think a minimal thing would be the
> > memremap.h and memory-failure.c changes from
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220508143620.1775214-4-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx ?
> 
> Latest is here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220508143620.1775214-1-ruansy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> > Sure, I can scoot that into 5.19-rc1 if you think that's best.  It
> > would probably be straining things to slip it into 5.19.
> 
> Hmm, if it's straining things and XFS will also target v5.20 I think
> the best course for all involved is just wait. Let some of the current
> conflicts in -mm land in v5.19 and then I can merge the DAX baseline
> and publish a stable branch for XFS and BTRFS to build upon for v5.20.

Sounds good to /me...

--D

> > The use of EOPNOTSUPP is a bit suspect, btw.  It *sounds* like the
> > right thing, but it's a networking errno.  I suppose livable with if it
> > never escapes the kernel, but if it can get back to userspace then a
> > user would be justified in wondering how the heck a filesystem
> > operation generated a networking errno?