From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B73FC433EF for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 04:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239364AbiBTEwM (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Feb 2022 23:52:12 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:52412 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229727AbiBTEwL (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Feb 2022 23:52:11 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x636.google.com (mail-pl1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CE70FC9 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:51:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x636.google.com with SMTP id ay3so1461864plb.1 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:51:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language :from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8aktvyxTQfTz4T7zUl9YR5ZozBlNK0rAs4FgR7Rn+Hk=; b=G5Dl3oXw5N7CxSFPuvPT550hpUL85OVJ5Hx/Mw+2zEIsyjsO7JYsVNKl8ydNUOLkff 9y4mT00lWJUrKUe5nTcSoUo5vLsMsHEHImCS0O7l8QduwEJ5pEP44TIRFBZ6vJfAsEYu HrfosRAZknQ5Jj1I9cZF+g4hb/v61tjA4+2JfVPDPwdLhmqFdQUlEWy/9eMFiFywwJiu nSJ81e2tK1crRfwrXqaM0SSLw7QpU1CvtQ8USx1njTi8TqC0GvRk8XlQkZcEkyp3FqqF gG/i5PL/zQSmPqxDFXXPq5QAPt6LcT6i/BJnpfY98qoLF3xaQcYR3c8iYg856onyTLkz 6UNg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8aktvyxTQfTz4T7zUl9YR5ZozBlNK0rAs4FgR7Rn+Hk=; b=7JRokJo6oO1gi3TOn8olxYy2HidnFmRAbFavPkFMWkb+H+pKO7ePr4jx8ujF7g85Lt 92kCfP59UcbUBqG2xHxhDNsne0uhPVOxkmwduX1iAnmyfq4GXTXbAzD2eQN2V4bAxvkP dd6Vl/m/QOpZk8w70vw/CI/LiqYlEnpJc8w2XzVvJFexWxQIabYZW9KIFjTcIQme1ojl TVEd5bpxabYoMIiBNHw4bXLUEhO/iW+V1eUj+0bwJYPLiiB2yx0f+V6wZIeEv3B1zt4y 1VebvFqW2S7hu8afpoUKp1laStc+VyaR5csuuEiwKTbXnBIASYD2b/mP+7D5XY0PB3aL zljA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530i2QzJkf6R5CYq8dvM6Nc6gvutcdRZ8ufeMp3+h0REgwL9Jd0B Bj59kyzxIZhy8t73TyZDWbYXgA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzFTJBv82Y7i+9gRClL8+UG/fJQNgYFunbOQVJPAG6tktW5XWf1iy8xJxxLnBlYI1WhORHpUg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d243:b0:1b9:e73b:5c07 with SMTP id o3-20020a17090ad24300b001b9e73b5c07mr15492240pjw.198.1645332710829; Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:51:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([198.8.77.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r72sm4679701pgr.80.2022.02.19.20.51.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:51:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 21:51:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/13] fs: split off __alloc_page_buffers function Content-Language: en-US From: Jens Axboe To: Matthew Wilcox , Christoph Hellwig Cc: Stefan Roesch , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com References: <20220218195739.585044-1-shr@fb.com> <20220218195739.585044-5-shr@fb.com> <7b2b2a34-601a-e62e-3e89-e19954dc965c@kernel.dk> In-Reply-To: <7b2b2a34-601a-e62e-3e89-e19954dc965c@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 2/19/22 9:38 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2/19/22 9:23 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:35:10PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> Err, hell no. Please do not add any new functionality to the legacy >>> buffer head code. If you want new features do that on the >>> non-bufferhead iomap code path only please. >> >> I think "first convert the block device code from buffer_heads to >> iomap" might be a bit much of a prerequisite. I think running ext4 on >> top of a > > Yes, that's exactly what Christoph was trying to say, but failing to > state in an appropriate manner. And we did actually discuss that, I'm > not against doing something like that. Just to be clear, I do agree with you that it's an unfair ask for this change. And as you mentioned, ext4 would require the buffer_head code to be touched anyway, just layering on top of the necessary changes for the bdev code. -- Jens Axboe