| From: |
| Dave Chinner <david-AT-fromorbit.com> |
| To: |
| Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux-AT-gmail.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH] fs: gfs2: Adding new return type vm_fault_t |
| Date: |
| Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:08:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20180417020852.GI5572@dastard> |
| Cc: |
| Bob Peterson <rpeterso-AT-redhat.com>, Al Viro <viro-AT-zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, swhiteho-AT-redhat.com, cluster-devel-AT-redhat.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy-AT-infradead.org> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:20:59PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patch is straightforward enough, but there are a lot of other
> > file systems that need similar patches. Shouldn't you do one big
> > patch set that fixes several file systems at once and run it through
> > Viro's kernel or Linus's kernel or something?
> > Adding Viro and linux-fsdevel for more opinions.
>
> The plan for these patches is to introduce the typedef, initially just
> as documentation ("These functions should return a VM_FAULT_ status").
> We'll trickle the patches to individual drivers/filesystems in through
> the maintainers, as far as possible. Then we'll change the typedef to
> an unsigned int and break the compilation of any unconverted
> drivers/filesystems.
>
> We have already started sending out drivers/filesystems changes
> to different maintainers.
Yes, we can see that. The response you are getting is "this is not
how we do cross-subsystem API changes. Why are you doing it this
way?"
i.e. the problem being pointed out is that your process has not
followed the correct/normal process for proposing, reviewing and
mering cross-subsystem API changes. Bob has raised the same
questions as both Christoph and Darrick have asked in response to
the XFS patch. I only implied these questions by asking about
introducing useless typedefs with no context for reviewers...
I'd really like to have Darrick's questions answered(*) in a
constructive, non-abusive manner - I'll quote it here to get it all
in one thread on -fsdevel:
| ...hm, the original mm patch wasn't cc'd to fsdevel either, so that's
| probably why I never heard of any of this until now.
|
| So, uh, why wasn't this whole series (all the mm changes and all the
| required fs changes) sent out for review prior to the merge window?
We're not asking for a description of what you are doing - we are
asking why the normal processes for proposing and merging such a
change is not being followed, and how you plan to rectify that.
Cheers,
Dave.
https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=152389824107375&w=2
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
