From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C42137F8B1; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:28:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.132 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768386521; cv=none; b=WQfPRMwaProJ3h49qzyENjRYUBn7P6vACvlQgi5BHkAQ17acckhPIGSYZ890xpy8ENemzgMnWBhm59XzpH7/1rGLtJjv9SE6jD9+XRn7jisJwfzoAddRyjpHO3Ptft/1k6Kp+8+jfHIiIubBk1+N9EaJ3G4YnHzao+V/lnqa0r0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768386521; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tpgVmkRqeiZa63Yu6N8ip9DWGbygd9O3goVNYqy37mY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=FhBuFY1PEUSRWuGLlc55jEVHK5373Y6yjBBmzD96AwlcpjdbNMkaxHHvGHTeESFjkFXma3ZXd5pAtS1O3vIzRpEKISdURlAa/y/5/x2g/cAktJnJw83IiKYR9akHwdVo7nVE4tldcwoOMSbfjyYnysOpi4tHTIhp30lR2YKJ2ok= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=D7v1wxvu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.132 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="D7v1wxvu" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1768386516; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Content-Type; bh=X3FIs7A5RvlrrKt9IluVyHYBz5NPE45rqc71MrXC4A0=; b=D7v1wxvuczsnUpX2x9Sl6mwWlm5tFEQtjvZmUO3HJyA9dBJAo3BLR7iURSNDvsuWdWdJ9OOi2NeFyuTAZF27H2vP7+O8Dcvq0v2OJ8kgRnMBSgUr+bFANJ57bkj5p0KEyeu067O9L7ATJeB8d6Dn62Ji3p+uwLqDgEOlRoB8SYs= Received: from 30.221.131.219(mailfrom:hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0Wx26mdT_1768386514 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:28:35 +0800 Message-ID: <0f33bd17-7a03-4c06-a492-e514935faed6@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:28:34 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 00/10] erofs: Introduce page cache sharing feature From: Gao Xiang To: Christian Brauner Cc: chao@kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, amir73il@gmail.com, hch@lst.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hongbo Li References: <20260109102856.598531-1-lihongbo22@huawei.com> <20260112-begreifbar-hasten-da396ac2759b@brauner> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Christian, On 2026/1/12 22:40, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Christian, > > On 2026/1/12 17:14, Christian Brauner wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 10:28:46AM +0000, Hongbo Li wrote: >>> Enabling page cahe sharing in container scenarios has become increasingly >>> crucial, as it can significantly reduce memory usage. In previous efforts, >>> Hongzhen has done substantial work to push this feature into the EROFS >>> mainline. Due to other commitments, he hasn't been able to continue his >>> work recently, and I'm very pleased to build upon his work and continue >>> to refine this implementation. >> >> I can't vouch for implementation details but I like the idea so +1 from me. > > Thanks, I think it should be fine. > Let me finalize the review this week. I wonder if it's possible that you could merge v14 PATCH 1 and 2 now to the vfs-iomap branch (both patches are reviewed or acked): https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260109102856.598531-2-lihongbo22@huawei.com https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260109102856.598531-3-lihongbo22@huawei.com since these two patches are almost independent to the main feature and can be merged independently as I said in the previous cycle. Merging those patches into a vfs branch also avoids other iomap conflicts. For the other patches (since PATCH 3), how about going through erofs tree (I will merge your iomap branch), since it seems at least it will cause several conflicts with my other ongoing work, does it sound good to you? Thanks, Gao Xiang > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang