Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-64478-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:45:02 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	mcgrof@kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	kbusch@kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, chandan.babu@oracle.com,
	p.raghav@samsung.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de,
	willy@infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 13/14] xfs: add an experimental CONFIG_XFS_LBS option
Message-ID: <Zcvw7hcMsOSCrCvg@dread.disaster.area>
References: <20240213093713.1753368-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
 <20240213093713.1753368-14-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
 <Zcvc20gqm6U6xaD0@dread.disaster.area>
 <gsxwuko2bmajg7wshcxx26p5afmzi6hpvc5u6oecp5slnybdr6@fdky2ksbpvki>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <gsxwuko2bmajg7wshcxx26p5afmzi6hpvc5u6oecp5slnybdr6@fdky2ksbpvki>

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:54:07PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:19:23AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:37:12AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > > From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> > > 
> > > Add an experimental CONFIG_XFS_LBS option to enable LBS support in XFS.
> > > Retain the ASSERT for PAGE_SHIFT if CONFIG_XFS_LBS is not enabled.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> > 
> > NAK.
> > 
> > There it no reason for this existing - the same code is run
> > regardless of the state of this config variable just with a
> > difference in min folio order. All it does is increase the test
> > matrix arbitrarily - now we have two kernel configs we have to test
> > and there's no good reason for doing that.
> 
> I did not have this CONFIG in the first round but I thought it might
> help retain the existing behaviour until we deem the feature stable.
> 
> But I get your point. So we remove this CONFIG and just have an
> experimental warning during mount when people are using the LBS support?

Yes.

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com