Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review | Date | Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:10:52 -0700 |
| |
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 recycled opinions.
> We're all still waiting for the patches you were going to produce > showing how this could be done.
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 necessary quality without being subjected to endless carping about when the patches will be posted.
If there is genuine interest in how we are approaching the new mm hooks for page forking I will happily to take the time to discuss it.
Note that I do not complain about Dave Chinner's endless carping, which contains much the same rhetoric as your posts, the difference being that Dave has proved himself a good reviewer. Though Dave behaves as caustically as you or perhaps more so, he always takes care to provide just enough useful technical sweetener to keep the technical vs toxic balance on the positive side. Of course, it would be much better for all if he cared to adopt a collegial manner, like Ted for example, who incidentally can flame with the best of them when he wants to. But who would want to, other than a self obsessed moron?
Speaking of Dave, what would be really interesting at this point is the long story of how XFS worked around pretty nearly the same writeback issues that Tux3 does. We already saw the short story, but it went by pretty fast. Color me truly interested, in part because a good solution to this is probably what we really want for writeback. Not immediately, because re-engineering parts of core kernel unnecessarily during a filesystem merge is simply foolhardy, but at some time in the not too distant future. (CC to Dave added.)
Regards,
Daniel
| |