Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758321AbcCCVUN (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:20:13 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:33561 "EHLO mail-io0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757437AbcCCVUK (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:20:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56D8A89E.9040200@fb.com> References: <20160303172516.GA24567@kernel.dk> <56D8A89E.9040200@fb.com> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:20:09 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zYSR4l2jTaR2bhEankd4MjMcXL4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 4.5-final From: Linus Torvalds To: Jens Axboe Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1834 Lines: 41 On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > It does fix a regression - the change is that NVMe now uses the block layer > for these types of requests, and they don't have to adhere to the regular fs > limits of sizing. Hence we broke real use cases, of (for instance) pulling > logs off devices. Both of the referenced commits were added yesterday, not > today. And they should have been folded, but I had already committed the > first one. I don't think that should preclude doing it much cleaner than the > first one. Why does this affect only NVMe, and not all the other drivers that have been around forever? What is that magical case that breaks? Details, please. > Fair enough, I can boil it down somewhat. But honestly, the only stuff I'd > feel comfortable pulling out now would be the lightnvm changes which aren't > that critical due to the user base, though that's also why it would be fine > to shove it in now. And the cgroup writeback enable, which can wait. The two > commits referenced above could be folded, but they'd still be in the new > pull request. > > So let me know if you want that, or we can proceed with the current branch, > because most of it should really go in as-is. I basically want for every commit an explanation of why it's so critical by now. I want to make you have to *think* and explain before you send stuff at this stage, and I want to understand why each commit is so important. Because really, this has been going on far too long, and this pull request looked singularly pointless. No way do I want things like cgroup writeback changes outside the merge window, for example, unless it's a major performance regression (with numbers) or something like that. No way do I want any lightnvm stuff. No way do I want big "cleanup" patches. Linus