From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92F1C6786F for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983B820820 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:53:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 983B820820 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728215AbeKATzu (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:55:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58684 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726520AbeKATzu (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:55:50 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BFCD37E85; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:53:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 117.195.187.81.in-addr.arpa (unknown [10.33.36.41]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9066F5D9CB; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [git pull] mount API series To: Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20181031053355.GQ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> From: Steven Whitehouse Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:53:21 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Thu, 01 Nov 2018 10:53:24 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 31/10/18 16:18, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:34 PM Al Viro wrote: >> mount API series from David Howells. Last cycle's objections >> had been of the "I'd do it differently" variety and with no such >> differently done variants having ever materialized over several >> cycles... > Having just lurked on the discussions about the bugs in here, I don't > think this is ready. Maybe they got fixed, but if so, it was recent > and it was pretty fundamental. > > The stated aim of the series is to make the mount API _better_, not > worse. And right now it looks like a "two steps back, one theoretical > step forwards" kind of better. > > Linus The design of the new mount API has been under discussion for some time, both on the mailing lists, and also at LSF/MM too. Al and David (and others) have put a lot of work into getting to the current position, and have specifically requested input from Eric about his concerns over past cycles. When I look at the discussions I'm seeing two main issues (please correct me if you think I'm wrong about this) which are (a) whether the design is correct and (b) whether there are still bugs in the current patch set. Which of these are you most concerned about? It seems to me that there is not a lot of point in spending a large amount of time in additional review/testing of the current patch set if the overall design is set to be rejected. If your concerns are only with the robustness/stability of the patch set, then that provides a clear route to resolving the current impasse, at least assuming that Eric is able to enumerate the issues that he has discovered. It looks like David has already provided a fix for one of the issues which Eric mentioned in his recent email. Eric it would be good if you could confirm that this addresses that particular concern, Steve.