News: 0001576373

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Linux 6.18 Will Further Complicate Non-GPL Out-Of-Tree File-Systems

([Linux Storage] 5 Hours Ago write_cache_pages Removed)


Out-of-tree file-system drivers not licensed/compatible with the GPL will have a new obstacle to deal with come time for [1]Linux 6.18 later this year.

A patch queued up this week in advance of the Linux 6.18 merge window opening removes write_cache_pages. In turn this will cause issues for non-GPL out-of-tree file-systems for writing dirty data from the page cache. After the NTFS3 and Bcachefs in-tree users of the iterator were moved off of it, for Linux 6.18 the "write_cache_pages" will be removed that is depended upon by out-of-tree, non-GPL file-systems.

[2]This patch from Christoph Hellwig is what's now in linux-next ahead of Linux 6.18 and kills off the write_cache_pages now that there are no longer any in-tree users.

The out-of-tree OpenZFS file-system is among the [3]users of write_cache_pages.

The Phoronix reader who pointed me to this pending conflict with out-of-tree file-system drivers commented in a message:

"With the removal of both file_operation.writepage and write_cache_pages() it is no longer possible for out-of-tree non-GPL filesystems to write dirty pages out of the page cache.

It might be possible to use non-RCU interfaces to walk the internal xarray to search for dirty pages to write but that would be a major layer violation. Not to mention performance would be severely impacted."

We'll see how the situation plays out in the coming weeks/months with the stable Linux 6.18 kernel due out in December.



[1] https://www.phoronix.com/search/Linux+6.18

[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=9c5518f1bacf98b20c3ad0fa5873b4da92122ced

[3] https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/blob/d64711c20205b3ffa6ce1e0495d55207d6bbd80b/module/os/linux/zfs/zpl_file.c#L490



Alexmitter

sophisticles

nyanbinary

ahrs

OneTimeShot

rb777

touchdown

cb88

dibal

Well, anyway, I was reading this James Bond book, and right away I realized
that like most books, it had too many words. The plot was the same one that
all James Bond books have: An evil person tries to blow up the world, but
James Bond kills him and his henchmen and makes love to several attractive
women. There, that's it: 24 words. But the guy who wrote the book took
*thousands* of words to say it.
Or consider "The Brothers Karamazov", by the famous Russian alcoholic
Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It's about these two brothers who kill their father.
Or maybe only one of them kills the father. It's impossible to tell because
what they mostly do is talk for nearly a thousand pages. If all Russians talk
as much as the Karamazovs did, I don't see how they found time to become a
major world power.
I'm told that Dostoyevsky wrote "The Brothers Karamazov" to raise
the question of whether there is a God. So why didn't he just come right
out and say: "Is there a God? It sure beats the heck out of me."
Other famous works could easily have been summarized in a few words:

* "Moby Dick" -- Don't mess around with large whales because they symbolize
nature and will kill you.
* "A Tale of Two Cities" -- French people are crazy.
-- Dave Barry