On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:09:31AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 16:11:23 +0100 David Sterba [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 03:23:00PM -0800, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:

quoted

From: Ira Weiny <redacted>

There are many places where kmap/<operation>/kunmap patterns occur.  We lift
these various patterns to core common functions and use them in the btrfs file
system.  At the same time we convert those core functions to use
kmap_local_page() which is more efficient in those calls.

I think this is best accepted through Andrew's tree as it has the mem*_page
functions in it.  But I'd like to get an ack from David or one of the other
btrfs maintainers before the btrfs patches go through.

I'd rather take the non-mm patches through my tree so it gets tested
the same way as other btrfs changes, straightforward cleanups or not.

This brings the question how to do that as the first patch should go
through the MM tree. One option is to posptpone the actual cleanups
after the 1st patch is merged but this could take a long delay.

I'd suggest to take the 1st patch within MM tree in the upcoming merge
window and then I can prepare a separate pull with just the cleanups.
Removing an inter-tree patch dependency was a sufficient reason for
Linus in the past for such pull requests.

It would be best to merge [1/4] via the btrfs tree.  Please add my

Acked-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>


Although I think it would be better if [1/4] merely did the code
movement.  Adding those BUG_ON()s is a semantic/functional change and
really shouldn't be bound up with the other things this patch series
does.

I proposed this too and was told 'no'...

<quote>
If we put in into a separate patch, someone will suggest backing out the
patch which tells us that there's a problem.
</quote>
	-- https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201209201415.GT7338@casper.infradead.org/ (local)

This logically separate change raises questions such as

- What is the impact on overall code size?  Not huge, presumably, but
  every little bit hurts.

- Additional runtime costs of those extra comparisons?

- These impacts could be lessened by using VM_BUG_ON() rather than
  BUG_ON() - should we do this?

<sigh>  I lost that argument last time around.

<quote>
BUG() is our only option here.  Both limiting how much we copy or
copying the requested amount result in data corruption or leaking
information to a process that isn't supposed to see it.
</quote>

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201209040312.GN7338@casper.infradead.org/ (local)

CC'ing Matthew because I _really_ don't want to argue this any longer.

- Linus reeeeeeeally doesn't like new BUG_ON()s.  Maybe you can sneak
  it past him ;)

I'm worried too...  :-(

See what I mean?

Yes I do however ...  see above...  :-/

Ira

I do think it would be best to take those assertions
out of the patch and to propose them separately, at a later time.