On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:52:15 AM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 04:27 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
I emphatically disagree that it is premature for asking Tux3 to be
merged. You might think so, but I do not. While I do not begrudge
you your opinion, Linux did not get to
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 04:27 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:59:40 AM PDT, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:10:52AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >>
> >> That makes sense, because the patches to transform our workarounds
> >> into shiny new kernel
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:59:40 AM PDT, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:10:52AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
That makes sense, because the patches to transform our workarounds
into shiny new kernel hooks are still in progress, as I said. I would
appreciate the courtesy of
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 6:06:00 PM PDT, Dave Chinner wrote:
BTW, it's worth noting that reviewers are *allowed* to change their
mind at any time during a discussion or during review cycles.
Indeed, this occurs quite commonly. It's no different to multiple
reviewers disagreeing on what the
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:10:52AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> That makes sense, because the patches to transform our workarounds
> into shiny new kernel hooks are still in progress, as I said. I would
> appreciate the courtesy of being permitted to take the time to do the
> work to the
On Monday, June 23, 2014 9:41:30 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
[rhetoric snipped]
... I'm still arguing the facts: proving
that page forking can be integrated into writeback without adding to the
maintenance burden is a big issue for tux3.
Sorry, I must have missed those facts, I only saw
On Monday, June 23, 2014 9:41:30 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
[rhetoric snipped]
... I'm still arguing the facts: proving
that page forking can be integrated into writeback without adding to the
maintenance burden is a big issue for tux3.
Sorry, I must have missed those facts, I only saw
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:10:52AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
That makes sense, because the patches to transform our workarounds
into shiny new kernel hooks are still in progress, as I said. I would
appreciate the courtesy of being permitted to take the time to do the
work to the
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 6:06:00 PM PDT, Dave Chinner wrote:
BTW, it's worth noting that reviewers are *allowed* to change their
mind at any time during a discussion or during review cycles.
Indeed, this occurs quite commonly. It's no different to multiple
reviewers disagreeing on what the
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:59:40 AM PDT, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:10:52AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
That makes sense, because the patches to transform our workarounds
into shiny new kernel hooks are still in progress, as I said. I would
appreciate the courtesy of
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 04:27 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:59:40 AM PDT, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 02:10:52AM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
That makes sense, because the patches to transform our workarounds
into shiny new kernel hooks are
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:52:15 AM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 04:27 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
I emphatically disagree that it is premature for asking Tux3 to be
merged. You might think so, but I do not. While I do not begrudge
you your opinion, Linux did not get to
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 17:27 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 7:43:07 AM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 20:32 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> That's a bit disingenuous: the
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 11:34:50 AM PDT, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 08:32:03PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has always been how page forking
interacted with writeback. It's not new, it was one of the major
things
brought up at LSF
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:26:48 AM PDT, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
...
the concern has always been how page forking interacted with
writeback.
More accurately, that is
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:26:48 AM PDT, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
...
the concern has always been how page forking interacted with
writeback.
More accurately, that is
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 11:34:50 AM PDT, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 08:32:03PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has always been how page forking
interacted with writeback. It's not new, it was one of the major
things
brought up at LSF
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 17:27 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 7:43:07 AM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 20:32 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 08:32:03PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has always been how page forking
> >interacted with writeback. It's not new, it was one of the major things
> >brought up at LSF 14 months ago, so you weren't just assigned this.
>
>
On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 20:32 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >> We already removed 450 lines of core kernel workarounds from Tux3 with
> an
> >> approach that was
On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 20:32 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We already removed 450 lines of core kernel workarounds from Tux3 with
an
approach that was literally cut
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 08:32:03PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has always been how page forking
interacted with writeback. It's not new, it was one of the major things
brought up at LSF 14 months ago, so you weren't just assigned this.
[citation
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We already removed 450 lines of core kernel workarounds from Tux3 with
an
approach that was literally cut and pasted from one of Dave's
emails. Then
Dave changed his
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:29:01PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:26:48 AM PDT, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> > > Let me remind you some more important problems Dave brought up,
> > > including page forking:
> > >
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:26:48 AM PDT, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> > Let me remind you some more important problems Dave brought up,
> > including page forking:
> >
> > "
> > The hacks around VFS and MM functionality need to have
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:26:48 AM PDT, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
Let me remind you some more important problems Dave brought up,
including page forking:
The hacks around VFS and MM functionality need to have demonstrated
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:29:01PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:26:48 AM PDT, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
Let me remind you some more important problems Dave brought up,
including page forking:
The
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We already removed 450 lines of core kernel workarounds from Tux3 with
an
approach that was literally cut and pasted from one of Dave's
emails. Then
Dave changed his
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:24:10 AM PDT, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 05/16/2014 05:50 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We
have prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:26:48 AM PDT, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Pavel Machek wrote:
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:21:29 +0200
From: Pavel Machek
To: James Bottomley
Cc: Daniel Phillips , Dave Chinner
,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org,
...
On 05/16/2014 05:50 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have prepared a
new repository suitable for pulling:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:21:29 +0200
> From: Pavel Machek
> To: James Bottomley
> Cc: Daniel Phillips , Dave Chinner ,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org,
> Linus Torvalds ,
> Andrew Morton
On Mon 2014-06-16 08:25:54, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 14:41 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > to sign up for a ridiculous amount of largely thankless, but
On Mon 2014-06-16 08:25:54, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 14:41 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
to sign up for a ridiculous amount of largely thankless, but
...@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org,
Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review
On Mon 2014-06-16 08:25:54, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 14:41 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM
On 05/16/2014 05:50 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have prepared a
new repository suitable for pulling:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:26:48 AM PDT, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Pavel Machek wrote:
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:21:29 +0200
From: Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz
To: James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com
Cc: Daniel Phillips dan...@phunq.net, Dave Chinner
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:24:10 AM PDT, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 05/16/2014 05:50 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We
have prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 14:41 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >> Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Actually, would
On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 14:41 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
...
Actually, would it make sense to
On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
...
Actually, would it make sense to have staging/fs/?
That makes sense to me, if a suitably expert
On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
...
Actually, would it make sense to have staging/fs/?
That makes sense to me, if a suitably expert
Hi!
On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >Hmm, it seems that merging filesystems is getting harder over
> >time. Soon, it will be impossible to merge new filesystem.
>
> My thought exactly, but it carries
Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hmm, it seems that merging filesystems is getting harder over
time. Soon, it will be impossible to merge new filesystem.
My thought exactly, but it carries more weight coming from you.
It is getting more unpleasant to
Hi!
> > As I said, the glaring omission is proper ENOSPC handling, which is
> > work in progress. I do not view that as an obstacle to merging.
> >
> > After all, Btrfs did not have proper ENOSPC handling when it was
> > merged.
>
> Yup, and that was a big mistake. Hence not having working
Hi!
As I said, the glaring omission is proper ENOSPC handling, which is
work in progress. I do not view that as an obstacle to merging.
After all, Btrfs did not have proper ENOSPC handling when it was
merged.
Yup, and that was a big mistake. Hence not having working ENOSPC
detection
Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hmm, it seems that merging filesystems is getting harder over
time. Soon, it will be impossible to merge new filesystem.
My thought exactly, but it carries more weight coming from you.
It is getting more unpleasant to
Hi!
On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Hi Pavel, On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:32:16 AM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hmm, it seems that merging filesystems is getting harder over
time. Soon, it will be impossible to merge new filesystem.
My thought exactly, but it carries more
Hi Dongsu,
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:52:27 AM PDT, Dongsu Park wrote:
First of all, thank you for trying to merge it to mainline.
Maybe I cannot say the code is clean enough, but basically
the filesystem seems to work at least.
Thank you for confirming that. We test Tux3 extensively so we
Hi Dongsu,
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:52:27 AM PDT, Dongsu Park wrote:
First of all, thank you for trying to merge it to mainline.
Maybe I cannot say the code is clean enough, but basically
the filesystem seems to work at least.
Thank you for confirming that. We test Tux3 extensively so we
Hi,
On 19.05.2014 17:55, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On 05/18/2014 04:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:50:59PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >>We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
> >>prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
> >>
>
Hi,
On 19.05.2014 17:55, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On 05/18/2014 04:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:50:59PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
Hi Dave,
This is to address your concern about theoretical interaction between
direct IO and Tux3 page fork.
On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:41:40 PM PDT, I wrote:
Except that Direct IO impacts on the design of the page forking code
(because of how things like get_user_pages() need to be aware of
On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:29:43 PM PDT, I wrote:
Hirofumi is the one who deserves congratulations,
recognition for providing more than half the code including most
of the hard parts, and thanks for bringing Tux3 back to life.
An epilogue... one gentleman took that suggestion seriously and
On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:29:43 PM PDT, I wrote:
Hirofumi is the one who deserves congratulations,
recognition for providing more than half the code including most
of the hard parts, and thanks for bringing Tux3 back to life.
An epilogue... one gentleman took that suggestion seriously and
Hi Dave,
This is to address your concern about theoretical interaction between
direct IO and Tux3 page fork.
On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:41:40 PM PDT, I wrote:
Except that Direct IO impacts on the design of the page forking code
(because of how things like get_user_pages() need to be aware of
On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:18:02 PM PDT, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:55:30PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On 05/18/2014 04:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
...
I'm not commenting on the c99 comment style, I'm passing comment on
the fact that a filesystem that has commented out
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:55:30PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On 05/18/2014 04:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:50:59PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >static const struct inode_operations tux_file_iops = {
> >// .permission = ext4_permission,
> >
On 05/18/2014 04:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:50:59PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/daniel/linux-tux3.git/
On 05/18/2014 04:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:50:59PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/daniel/linux-tux3.git/
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:55:30PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On 05/18/2014 04:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:50:59PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
static const struct inode_operations tux_file_iops = {
// .permission = ext4_permission,
.setattr
On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:18:02 PM PDT, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:55:30PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On 05/18/2014 04:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
...
I'm not commenting on the c99 comment style, I'm passing comment on
the fact that a filesystem that has commented out
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:50:59PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
> prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/daniel/linux-tux3.git/
>
> Tux3 kernel module files are here:
>
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:50:59PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/daniel/linux-tux3.git/
Tux3 kernel module files are here:
On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:09:50 PM PDT, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Hi Daniel!
Am Freitag, 16. Mai 2014, 17:50:59 schrieb Daniel Phillips:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
At long last!
Congrats for arriving at
Hi Daniel!
Am Freitag, 16. Mai 2014, 17:50:59 schrieb Daniel Phillips:
> We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
> prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
At long last!
Congrats for arriving at this point.
Ciao,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald -
Hi Daniel!
Am Freitag, 16. Mai 2014, 17:50:59 schrieb Daniel Phillips:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
At long last!
Congrats for arriving at this point.
Ciao,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald -
On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:09:50 PM PDT, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Hi Daniel!
Am Freitag, 16. Mai 2014, 17:50:59 schrieb Daniel Phillips:
We would like to offer Tux3 for review for mainline merge. We have
prepared a new repository suitable for pulling:
At long last!
Congrats for arriving at
68 matches
Mail list logo
