On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 09:21:41AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:54:42PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:

quoted

quoted

I don't want to do that to Christian either, I think highly of the work
he's been doing and I don't want to be adding to his frustration. So I
apologize for loosing my cool earlier; a lot of that was frustration
from other threads spilling over.

But: if he's going to be raising objections, I need to know what his
concerns are if we're going to get anywhere. Raising objections without
saying what the concerns are shuts down discussion; I don't think it's
unreasonable to ask people not to do that, and to try and stay focused
on the code.

The technical aspects were made clear off-list and I believe multiple
times on-list by now. Any VFS and block related patches are to be
reviewed and accepted before bcachefs gets merged.

Here's the one VFS patch in the series - could we at least get an ack
for this? It's a new helper, just breaks the existing d_tmpfile() up
into two functions - I hope we can at least agree that this patch
shouldn't be controversial?

-->--
Subject: [PATCH] fs: factor out d_mark_tmpfile()

New helper for bcachefs - bcachefs doesn't want the
inode_dec_link_count() call that d_tmpfile does, it handles i_nlink on
its own atomically with other btree updates

Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org

Yep, that looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>