xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 48/49] xfs: Add read-only support for dirent filetype field

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 48/49] xfs: Add read-only support for dirent filetype field
From: Geoffrey Wehrman <gwehrman@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 13:32:05 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <520D06C0.3040207@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1374215120-7271-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1374215120-7271-49-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51F80FA8.4060304@xxxxxxx> <20130812005905.GK12779@dastard> <5208E243.9080403@xxxxxxx> <20130813005024.GS12779@dastard> <520A53E8.6030604@xxxxxxx> <20130814075042.GE6023@dastard> <20130814184729.GA4604@xxxxxxx> <520D06C0.3040207@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:50:08AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
| On 8/14/13 1:47 PM, Geoffrey Wehrman wrote:
| > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 05:50:42PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
| > | On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:42:32AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
| > | > On 08/12/13 19:50, Dave Chinner wrote:
| > | > >On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 08:25:23AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
| > | > >>On 08/11/13 19:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
| > | > >>>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:10:32PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
| > | > >>>>On 07/19/13 01:25, Dave Chinner wrote:
| > | > >>>>>From: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > >>>>>
| > | > >>>>>Add support for the file type field in directory entries so that
| > | > >>>>>readdir can return the type of the inode the dirent points to to
| > | > >>>>>userspace without first having to read the inode off disk.
| > | .....
| > | > >>>>>Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > >>>>>---
| > | > >>>>>
| > | > >>>>
| > | > >>>>>+static inline int xfs_sb_version_hasftype(struct xfs_sb *sbp)
| > | > >>>>>+{
| > | > >>>>>+  return XFS_SB_VERSION_NUM(sbp) == XFS_SB_VERSION_5&&
| > | > >>>>>+          xfs_sb_has_incompat_feature(sbp, 
XFS_SB_FEAT_INCOMPAT_FTYPE);
| > | > >>>>>  }
| > | > >>>>>
| > | > >>>>
| > | > >>>>This feature should support inode version 2 and 3.
| > | > >>>
| > | > >>>Has nothing to do with the inode version number - it has to do with
| > | > >>>the directory structure being modified.
| > | > >>>
| > | > >>>We're changing the directory structure for CRCs, and this builds on
| > | > >>>top of that. It is essentially part of the V3 directory format, and
| > | > >>>should be treated as such. Suggesting that we retrofit and support a
| > | > >>>modified v2 directory format is close to insane - instead of only
| > | > >>>having to test v2 vs v3 directory formats, you're suggesting we
| > | > >>>support v2 vs v2+dtype vs v3 vs v3+dtype. We simply do not have the
| > | > >>>resources to adequately test and support such an explosion of
| > | > >>>filesystem configurations.
| > | > >>>
| > | > >>>We've had this discussion before - new on-disk features go into the
| > | > >>>v5 superblock format - the v4 superblock format from this point
| > | > >>>onwards is essentially legacy support from an upstream development
| > | > >>>perspective.
| > | ....
| > | > >>>That said, there's nothing to stop anyone from backporting such a
| > | > >>>feature to an older kernel and maintaining it themselves - it's open
| > | > >>>source software. But the idea that development should be constrained
| > | > >>>by having to support both old and new formats is wrong - the old v4
| > | > >>>format should be considered stable and we need think very hard about
| > | > >>>changing it at all now, especially as much of the development focus
| > | > >>>is now shifting to taking advantage of the additions to the v5
| > | > >>>format....
| > | > >>
| > | > >>I guess we need more time to argue this out. It is not going into
| > | > >>Linux 3.12 as a crc feature only.
| > | > >
| > | > >Seriously?
| > | > 
| > | > yes seriously.
| > | 
| > | Great, another random roadblock from the XFS maintainers to deal
| > | with.
| > 
| > The addition of the file type field to directory entries is a great
| > new feature.  Your implementation of adding a "hidden" byte to the name
| > field is especially clever.  This is a feature that can benefit both
| > dir2 and dir3 format filesystems and is completely independent of your
| > CRC and self describing metadata feature work.  I understand that you
| > are not interested in porting the capability to dir2 format filesystems
| > yourself and do not have the resources to provide the associated testing
| > and support.  Myself and others within SGI have discussed these issues,
| > and we are willing to take on the work ourselves rather than have this
| > feature go only into v5 superblock filesystems where the feature is only
| > accessible to those who are willing to risk using experimental code.
| > Given that SGI will be doing the work to support the file type field
| > in dir2 format filesystems, it doesn't make sense to add the code to
| > v5 filesystems until all of the work is complete as there could be
| > additional considerations for the on disk changes.
| > 
| > We also noted that this feature should not be added to the kernel until
| > userspace code is available to support this feature.  Specifically,
| > xfs_repair needs to validate and if needed repair the the file type field.
| > Also, tests are needed to validate the new functionality.  While I
| > expect that you will provide this support for v5 superblock and dir3
| > filesystems, one of us at SGI will extend the support to v4 superblock
| > and dir2 filesystems.
| 
| These requirements are very, very late in the process.  Dave's work has
| been discussed for a long time in public, with plenty of time for input
| and cooperation and coordination.
| 
| If the type field is critical to SGI on V4 superblocks, I'd have expected
| to see patches from SGI by now, either prior to, or in coordination with,
| Dave's work.  So it's hard for me to tell if this is a strategic requirement
| for you, or an effort to delay the CRC work which you seem to be uneasy with.
| Indeed, you floated this as a requirement many weeks (months?) ago, but as far
| as I know, no actual work or patches or proposals to implement it have been
| forthcoming from SGI.
| 
| I apologize for not being up to speed on the technical details of what it
| might take, but I figure surely SGI is on top of it, if you're signing up
| to do the work.
| 
| So I'd propose (and the guys in the trenches can bang this around) that if
| you are serious about this, you commit to producing patches which address your
| stated requirements without negatively affecting Dave's V5 design, with all
| necessary retesting, any of Dave's outstanding patches rebased as necessary,
| and everything ready for upstream integration on the original schedule.
| 
| You've had plenty of time to do this, but it's not been done AFAICT.
| I think you need to get busy and back up your words with patches pronto, or 
drop
| the above stated requirement; perhaps there is a way to add the support to V4
| superblocks retroactively if you miss this window.
| 
| There may well be technical hurdles I'm not aware of, but I think we need to 
see
| SGI's proposed implementation to be able to discuss that efficiently.

I'll admit that I'm not a close follower of the oss-xfs mail list, but
the first mention I can find of the dirent filetype field feature on
the list is in Dave's patch posted July 19 along with 48 other patches.
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-07/msg00422.html

If there was discussion on the list about this feature prior to the
above posting, I apologize.  Had I known the dirent filetype feature
was coming and would not be supported in v4 filesystems, I would have
been able to start this conversation earlier.


-- 
Geoffrey Wehrman  651-683-5496  gwehrman@xxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>