From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 8E2DD74E26 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:49:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721339343; cv=none; b=Os0P7Z4BLCOLKgIZkBMW7kEbHBouDQ/FCM491MbQ2Kp+P0dhOWV0Q/FBVYaGbpRilC83/99TAkLm3AC8LgbBjf6cFD0UItW9dNzJUBJfMWq7wzpNJEXn/iyRa1sBO/v5W/DDngA7sP27y72vj/7rSDpPb1kJOcSezcj3M2XRyro= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721339343; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fRDaX9VTlaeoApmfLRQ+W7qdpJvrMy/JLsVSvBohTwo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=MtqE8FSkK4jc170LG/Ao1dw3xNNlGjG7jKb0qeRdZR9qqI/QnHgygwwWjp4mxpVxwnIdlO55N2kX196AbsrQW2YNS1yuQ01R06OfC5aZUJSw7w7gIa4ILei1JYPsCScYC4qjy9hyU3fCBlVms5viZzqVSvsYd9VFfzcbHfDMRZw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=jIpJ/n5g; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="jIpJ/n5g" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1721339339; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=iSDJ+UGcBOwd8jwVhUDcFJXEg2LhB5hHVkSUyhvGsv4=; b=jIpJ/n5gbhERymXfv6nyvlcqVZfvzo+YCdL0twKWeKu5GSV43392ub7eOgZRP9iCSXS67R Ry3MpH+KA4o1Gpyfgc/5lzYC5pvcDA15l0P4FrCn1grDVz5IkoyvNWFVEFNpUHjia71l9t bAQs9cmoSg47kun9OuO23IkAS3yzgBE= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-641-xZdVVzpXPYOxyTivrBnr-w-1; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:48:53 -0400 X-MC-Unique: xZdVVzpXPYOxyTivrBnr-w-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C56D19560B1; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:48:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.22.32.50] (unknown [10.22.32.50]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2214C195605A; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <3f4f7090-7009-4509-9122-b75a0d9ce32c@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:48:50 -0400 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: [GIT PULL] bcachefs changes for 6.11 To: Kent Overstreet , Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <5ypgzehnp2b3z2e5qfu2ezdtyk4dc4gnlvme54hm77aypl3flj@xlpjs7dbmkwu> Content-Language: en-US From: Waiman Long In-Reply-To: <5ypgzehnp2b3z2e5qfu2ezdtyk4dc4gnlvme54hm77aypl3flj@xlpjs7dbmkwu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 On 7/18/24 17:20, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:53:04AM GMT, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 at 18:26, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>> Hi Linus - another opossum for the posse: >> (The kernel naming tends to be related to some random event, in this >> case we had a family of opossums under our shed for a couple of >> months) > Oh cute :) > >>> bcachefs changes for 6.11-rc1 >> As Stephen pointed out, all of this seems to have been rebased >> basically as the merge window opened, so if it was in linux-next, I >> certainly can't easily validate it without having to compare patch ids >> etc. DON'T DO THIS. > I had to give this some thought; the proximate cause was just > fat fingering/old reflexes, but the real issue that's been causing > conflicts is that I've got testers running my trees who very much /do/ > need to be on the latest tagged release. > > And I can't just leave it for them to do a rebase/merge, because a) they > don't do that, and b) then I'm looking at logs with commits I can't > reference. > > So - here's how my branches are going to be from now on: > > As before: > > - bcachefs-testing: code goes here first, until it's passed the testing > automation. Don't run this unless you're working with me on something. > - for-next: the subset of bcachefs-testing that's believed to be stable > - bcachefs-for-upstream: queue for next pull request, generally just > hotfixes > > But my master branch (previously the same as for-next) will now be > for-next merged with the latest tag from your tree, and I may do > similarly for bcachefs-for-upstream if it's needed. > > As a bonus, this means the testing automation will now be automatically > testing my branch + your latest; this would have caught the breakage > from Christoph's FUA changes back in 6.7. > >> Also, the changes to outside fs/bcachefs had questions that weren't answered. > Yeah, those comments should have been added. Waiman, how's this? > > -- >8 -- > > From 1d8cbc45ef1bab9be7119e0c5a6f8a05d5e2ca7d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Kent Overstreet > Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:17:10 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: Add comments for lockdep_set_no{validate,track}_class() > > Cc: Waiman Long > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet > > diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h > index b76f1bcd2f7f..bdfbdb210fd7 100644 > --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h > @@ -178,9 +178,22 @@ static inline void lockdep_init_map(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name, > (lock)->dep_map.wait_type_outer, \ > (lock)->dep_map.lock_type) > > +/** > + * lockdep_set_novalidate_class: disable checking of lock ordering on a given > + * lock > + * > + * Lockdep will still record that this lock has been taken, and print held > + * instances when dumping locks > + */ > #define lockdep_set_novalidate_class(lock) \ > lockdep_set_class_and_name(lock, &__lockdep_no_validate__, #lock) > > +/** > + * lockdep_set_notrack_class: disable lockdep tracking of a given lock entirely > + * > + * Bigger hammer than lockdep_set_novalidate_class: so far just for bcachefs, > + * which takes more locks than lockdep is able to track (48). > + */ > #define lockdep_set_notrack_class(lock) \ > lockdep_set_class_and_name(lock, &__lockdep_no_track__, #lock) > > That should be good enough. Thanks, Longman