From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 07:58:11 +0200 Subject: [Cluster-devel] remove iomap_writepage v2 In-Reply-To: References: <20220719041311.709250-1-hch@lst.de> <20220728111016.uwbaywprzkzne7ib@quack3> <20220729092216.GE3493@suse.de> <20220729141145.GA31605@lst.de> Message-ID: <20220811055811.GA12359@lst.de> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 09:43:58PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > To avoid duplicating work with you or Christoph ... it seems like the > plan is to kill ->writepage entirely soon, so there's no point in me > doing a sweep of all the filesystems to convert ->writepage to > ->write_folio, correct? While I won't commit to concrete definition of "soon" I think that is the general plan, and I don't think converting ->writepage to ->write_folio is needed. > I assume the plan for filesystems which have a writepage but don't have > a ->writepages (9p, adfs, affs, bfs, ecryptfs, gfs2, hostfs, jfs, minix, > nilfs2, ntfs, ocfs2, reiserfs, sysv, ubifs, udf, ufs, vboxsf) is to give > them a writepages, and ->migrate_folio if missing, yes. > modelled on iomap_writepages(). Seems that adding > a block_writepages() might be a useful thing for me to do? We have mpage_writepages which basically is the ->writepages counterpart to block_write_full_page. The only caveat is of course that it can use multi-block mappings from the get_bock callback, so we need to make sure the file systems don't do anything stupid there. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38F9C3F6B0 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 05:58:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229924AbiHKF6S (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2022 01:58:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42360 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229786AbiHKF6S (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2022 01:58:18 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 795F879A63; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 2AF2968AA6; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 07:58:12 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 07:58:11 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Johannes Weiner , Christoph Hellwig , Mel Gorman , Jan Kara , Bob Peterson , Andreas Gruenbacher , "Darrick J. Wong" , Damien Le Moal , Naohiro Aota , Vlastimil Babka , Johannes Thumshirn , cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: remove iomap_writepage v2 Message-ID: <20220811055811.GA12359@lst.de> References: <20220719041311.709250-1-hch@lst.de> <20220728111016.uwbaywprzkzne7ib@quack3> <20220729092216.GE3493@suse.de> <20220729141145.GA31605@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 09:43:58PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > To avoid duplicating work with you or Christoph ... it seems like the > plan is to kill ->writepage entirely soon, so there's no point in me > doing a sweep of all the filesystems to convert ->writepage to > ->write_folio, correct? While I won't commit to concrete definition of "soon" I think that is the general plan, and I don't think converting ->writepage to ->write_folio is needed. > I assume the plan for filesystems which have a writepage but don't have > a ->writepages (9p, adfs, affs, bfs, ecryptfs, gfs2, hostfs, jfs, minix, > nilfs2, ntfs, ocfs2, reiserfs, sysv, ubifs, udf, ufs, vboxsf) is to give > them a writepages, and ->migrate_folio if missing, yes. > modelled on iomap_writepages(). Seems that adding > a block_writepages() might be a useful thing for me to do? We have mpage_writepages which basically is the ->writepages counterpart to block_write_full_page. The only caveat is of course that it can use multi-block mappings from the get_bock callback, so we need to make sure the file systems don't do anything stupid there.