[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] fscache: I/O API modernisation and netfs helper library
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:33 AM David Howells <> wrote:
> Then I could follow it up with this patch here, moving towards dropping the
> PG_fscache alias for the new API.

So I don't mind the alias per se, but I did mind the odd mixing of
names for the same thing.

So I think your change to make it be named "wait_on_page_private_2()"
fixed that mixing, but I also think that it's probably then a good
idea to have aliases in place for filesystems that actually include
the fscache.h header.

Put another way: I think that it would be even better to simply just
have a function like

static inline void wait_on_page_fscache(struct page *page)
if (PagePrivate2(page))
wait_on_page_bit(page, PG_private_2);

and make that be *not* in <linux/pagemap.h>, but simply be in
<linux/fscache.h> under that big comment about how PG_private_2 is
used for the fscache bit. You already have that comment, putting the
above kind of helper function right there would very much explain why
a "wait for fscache bit" function then uses the PagePrivate2 function
to test the bit. Agreed?

Alternatively, since that header file already has

#define PageFsCache(page) PagePrivate2((page))

you could also just write the above as

static inline void wait_on_page_fscache(struct page *page)
if (PageFsCache(page))
wait_on_page_bit(page, PG_fscache);

and now it is even more obvious. And there's no odd mixing of
"fscache" and "private_2", it's all consistent.

IOW, I'm not against "wait_on_page_fscache()" as a function, but I
*am* against the odd _mixing_ of things without a big explanation,
where the code itself looks very odd and questionable.

And I think the "fscache" waiting functions should not be visible to
any core VM or filesystem code - it should be limited explicitly to
those filesystems that use fscache, and include that header file.

Wouldn't that make sense?

Also, honestly, I really *REALLY* want your commit messages to talk
about who has been cc'd, who has been part of development, and point
that I can actually see that "yes, other people were involved"

No, I don't require this in general, but exactly because of the
history we have, I really really want to see that. I want to see a


and the Cc's - or better yet, the Reviewed-by's etc - so that when I
get a pull request, it really is very obvious to me when I look at it
that others really have been involved.

So if I continue to see just

Signed-off-by: David Howells <>

at the end of the commit messages, I will not pull.

Yes, in this thread a couple of people have piped up and said that
they were part of the discussion and that they are interested, but if
I have to start asking around just to see that, then it's too little,
too late.

No more of this "it looks like David Howells did things in private". I
want links I can follow to see the discussion, and I really want to
see that others really have been involved.



 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-10 21:45    [W:0.217 / U:2.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site