Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

On Mon 2014-06-16 08:25:54, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 14:41 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >  to sign up for a ridiculous amount of largely thankless, but 
> > perhaps fascinating work. Any volunteers?
> 
> The whole suggestion is a non starter: we can't stage core API changes.
> Even if we worked out how to do that, the staging trees mostly don't get
> the type of in-depth expert review that you need anyway.

Well.. most filesystems do not need any core API changes, right?

> The Cardinal concern has always been the viability page forking and its
> impact on writeback  ... and since writeback is our most difficult an
> performance sensitive area, the bar to changing it is high.

And in this particular case, Daniel was flamed for poor coding style, not
for page forking. So staging/ would actually help him -- he could concentrate
on core changes without being distracted by unimportant stuff.

> When you presented page forking at LSF/MM in 2013, it didn't even stand
> up to basic scrutiny before people found unresolved problems:
> 
> http://lwn.net/Articles/548091/
> 
> After lots of prodding, you finally coughed up a patch for discussion:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/85619
> 
> But then that petered out again.  I can't emphasise enough that
> iterating these threads to a conclusion and reposting interface
> suggestions is the way to proceed on this ... as far as I can tell from
> the discussion, the reviewers were making helpful suggestions, even if
> they didn't like the original interface you proposed.

This obviously needs to be solved, first...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html