Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 4 Nov 2019 17:04:07 +1100
From:   Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     jack@suse.cz, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
        david@fromorbit.com, darrick.wong@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] ext4: port direct I/O to iomap infrastructure
Message-ID: <20191104060405.GA27115@bobrowski>
References: <cover.1572255424.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <20191103192040.GA12985@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191103192040.GA12985@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Howdy Ted!

On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 02:20:40PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Hi Matthew, could you do me a favor?  For the next (and hopefully
> final :-) spin of this patch series, could you base it on the
> ext4.git's master branch.  Then pull in Darrick's iomap-for-next
> branch, and then apply your patches on top of that.
> 
> I attempted to do this with the v6 patch series --- see the tt/mb-dio
> branch --- and I described on another e-mail thread, I appear to have
> screwed up that patch conflicts, since it's causing a failure with
> diroead-nolock using a 1k block size.  Since this wasn't something
> that worked when you were first working on the patch set, this isn't
> something I'm going to consider blocking, especially since a flay test
> failure which happens 7% of the time, and using dioread_nolock with a
> sub-page blocksize isn't something that is going to be all that common
> (since it wasn't working at all up until now).
> 
> Still, I'm hoping that either Ritesh or you can figure out how my
> simple-minded handling of the patch conflict between your and his
> patch series can be addressed properly.

OK, I will try get around to this tonight. :)

--<M>--