Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 5.20-rc1

[Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 05:30:03PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-08-11 at 22:22 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 05:08:11PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > 
> > > Actually, I never got a formal ack from Al. I did send it repeatedly,
> > > but I assume he has been too busy to respond. We've had it sitting in
> > > linux-next for a couple of months, and he did suggest that approach in
> > > the first place, but I too would also prefer to see his official ack on
> > > it.
> > 
> > "Suggested approach" had been about inode_insert5() changes, right?
> 
> Right. I was talking about this patch (which I think is sane):
> 
>     fs: change test in inode_insert5 for adding to the sb list

It is, AFAICS.

> > But that's fs/inode.c side of things...  I have to admit that I'd missed
> > the unlining d_same_name() - exporting the sucker per se didn't look
> > insane and I hadn't looked at that in details ;-/
> > 
> > Looking at it now...  might be worth renaming it into __d_same_name(),
> > leaving it inlined and exporting a wrapper; not sure if the impact on
> > d_lookup()/__d_lookup()/d_alloc_parallel() is worth worrying about it,
> > though.
> > 
> > Profiling a case when we have a plenty of files in the same directory
> > on tmpfs, with something earlier in the pathname to kick out of RCU
> > mode (e.g. going through /proc/self/cwd) might be interesting...
> 
> The d_name_name changes seemed ok to me, but it would be good to have
> your ack (or qualified NAK) if possible.

Exporting the functionality?  Sure, no problem.  Uninlining that one...
I suspect that it's OK, but I'd like to see profiling data; it's not
as if it would be hard to return to having it inlined, obviously.

Again, my apologies for not spotting that one.