Message ID | 20181102051459.GS6311@dastard (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Not Applicable, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] vfs: fix many problems in vfs clone/dedupe implementation | expand |
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:15 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote: > > Can you please pull update containing a rework of the VFS clone and > dedupe file range infrastructure from the tag listed below? I don't love the timing of this at the end of the merge window, but pulled, Linus
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:35:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:15 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote: > > > > Can you please pull update containing a rework of the VFS clone and > > dedupe file range infrastructure from the tag listed below? > > I don't love the timing of this at the end of the merge window, but pulled, When would have been a better time? It's too big for a late -rc, and it contains stuff that needs fixing pretty urgently. So if the merge window is not appropriate, what should we have done here? Cheers, Dave.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:36 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:35:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > I don't love the timing of this at the end of the merge window, but pulled, > > When would have been a better time? It's too big for a late -rc, and > it contains stuff that needs fixing pretty urgently. So if the merge > window is not appropriate, what should we have done here? No, I think that with the timing of the problem finding, it was probably the only thing to do, but generally I like these kinds of somewhat scary and disruptive patches (just because it touches multiple filesystems) _early_ in the merge window if at all possible, and showing that the development was done before and not some rushed thing.. Linus
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:13:37AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:36 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:35:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > I don't love the timing of this at the end of the merge window, but pulled, > > > > When would have been a better time? It's too big for a late -rc, and > > it contains stuff that needs fixing pretty urgently. So if the merge > > window is not appropriate, what should we have done here? > > No, I think that with the timing of the problem finding, it was > probably the only thing to do, but generally I like these kinds of > somewhat scary and disruptive patches (just because it touches > multiple filesystems) _early_ in the merge window if at all possible, > and showing that the development was done before and not some rushed > thing.. Fair enough. That was partly my fault - I forgot to add sob's to the commits when I pulled the final version in for testing in the middle of the first week of the merge window. I didn't realise that until after I'd soak and stress tested it and was getting ready to push it out to linux-next a week later. So I had to rewrite all the commits and so they would have looked an awful lot more recent than they really were. I should have mentioned this in the pull request... Cheers, Dave.