From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
brauner@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz,
cem@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
dchinner@redhat.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com,
ritesh.list@gmail.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
catherine.hoang@oracle.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/15] xfs: ignore HW which cannot atomic write a single block
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:59:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250430125906.GB834@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250429144446.GD25655@frogsfrogsfrogs>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 07:44:46AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > So this can't be merged into xfs_setsize_buftarg as suggeted last round
> > instead of needing yet another per-device call into the buftarg code?
>
> Oh, heh, I forgot that xfs_setsize_buftarg is called a second time by
> xfs_setup_devices at the end of fill_super.
That's actually the real call. The first is just a dummy to have
bt_meta_sectorsize/bt_meta_sectormask initialized because if we didn't
do that some assert in the block layer triggered. We should probably
remove that call and open code the two assignments..
> I don't like the idea of merging the hw atomic write detection into
> xfs_setsize_buftarg itself because (a) it gets called for the data
> device before we've read the fs blocksize so the validation is
> meaningless and (b) that makes xfs_setsize_buftarg's purpose less
> cohesive.
As explained last round this came up I'd of course rename it if
we did that. But I can do that later.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-30 12:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-25 16:44 [PATCH v9 00/15] large atomic writes for xfs John Garry
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 01/15] fs: add atomic write unit max opt to statx John Garry
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 02/15] xfs: add helpers to compute log item overhead John Garry
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 03/15] xfs: add helpers to compute transaction reservation for finishing intent items John Garry
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 04/15] xfs: rename xfs_inode_can_atomicwrite() -> xfs_inode_can_hw_atomic_write() John Garry
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 05/15] xfs: ignore HW which cannot atomic write a single block John Garry
2025-04-29 12:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-04-29 14:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-30 12:59 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-05-01 16:22 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-05-01 19:53 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-30 5:18 ` [PATCH v9.1 " Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 06/15] xfs: allow block allocator to take an alignment hint John Garry
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 07/15] xfs: refactor xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent() John Garry
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 08/15] xfs: refine atomic write size check in xfs_file_write_iter() John Garry
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 09/15] xfs: add xfs_atomic_write_cow_iomap_begin() John Garry
2025-04-25 16:44 ` [PATCH v9 10/15] xfs: add large atomic writes checks in xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin() John Garry
2025-04-25 16:45 ` [PATCH v9 11/15] xfs: commit CoW-based atomic writes atomically John Garry
2025-04-25 16:45 ` [PATCH v9 12/15] xfs: add xfs_file_dio_write_atomic() John Garry
2025-04-25 16:45 ` [PATCH v9 13/15] xfs: add xfs_compute_atomic_write_unit_max() John Garry
2025-04-30 7:52 ` John Garry
2025-05-01 4:30 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-05-01 5:00 ` John Garry
2025-05-01 16:23 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-25 16:45 ` [PATCH v9 14/15] xfs: update atomic write limits John Garry
2025-04-25 16:45 ` [PATCH v9 15/15] xfs: allow sysadmins to specify a maximum atomic write limit at mount time John Garry
2025-04-29 12:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-04-29 14:38 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-30 14:14 ` [PATCH v9 00/15] large atomic writes for xfs John Garry
2025-05-01 4:31 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-05-01 5:04 ` John Garry
2025-05-01 13:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250430125906.GB834@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=catherine.hoang@oracle.com \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.