Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211018044054.1779424-1-hch@lst.de> <CAPcyv4iEt78-XSsKjTWcpy71zaduXyyigTro6f3fmRqqFOG98Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211029105139.1194bb7f@canb.auug.org.au> <CAPcyv4g8iEyN5UN1w1xBqQDYSb3HCh7_smsmjt-PiHORRK+X9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211029155524.GE24307@magnolia>
In-Reply-To: <20211029155524.GE24307@magnolia>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:16:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hL7ox5a7L7pBs-uoj_h+9F7E_nBs-qnJKBbJ7PHpWAjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: futher decouple DAX from block devices
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@lists.linux.dev>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 8:55 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 08:42:29AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:52 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Dan,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:46:31 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My merge resolution is here [1]. Christoph, please have a look. The
> > > > rebase and the merge result are both passing my test and I'm now going
> > > > to review the individual patches. However, while I do that and collect
> > > > acks from DM and EROFS folks, I want to give Stephen a heads up that
> > > > this is coming. Primarily I want to see if someone sees a better
> > > > strategy to merge this, please let me know, but if not I plan to walk
> > > > Stephen and Linus through the resolution.
> > >
> > > It doesn't look to bad to me (however it is a bit late in the cycle :-(
> > > ).  Once you are happy, just put it in your tree (some of the conflicts
> > > are against the current -rc3 based version of your tree anyway) and I
> > > will cope with it on Monday.
> >
> > Christoph, Darrick, Shiyang,
> >
> > I'm losing my nerve to try to jam this into v5.16 this late in the
> > cycle.
>
> Always a solid choice to hold off for a little more testing and a little
> less anxiety. :)
>
> I don't usually accept new code patches for iomap after rc4 anyway.
>
> > I do want to get dax+reflink squared away as soon as possible,
> > but that looks like something that needs to build on top of a
> > v5.16-rc1 at this point. If Linus does a -rc8 then maybe it would have
> > enough soak time, but otherwise I want to take the time to collect the
> > acks and queue up some more follow-on cleanups to prepare for
> > block-less-dax.
>
> I think that hwpoison-calls-xfs-rmap patchset is a prerequisite for
> dax+reflink anyway, right?  /me had concluded both were 5.17 things.

Ok, cool, sounds like a plan.