From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CF9E23370F for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 14:48:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762354083; cv=none; b=mxsprm5vQKYfh/SHYkMF3HVahZq53AJcHhzrxMjXj5PSKJeAhTVTzeiYfjVPSsnJbtXGJ6QUeb3Rejti4gp7/mKS1cs6k+KiPTKzePnPtny8W3QGvK3ozVS7cuRdzlbW0pj9lcRsHMKxzgf4FGqVkQt6tS+UVBxD+dKBH16LHu8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762354083; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oO/Pgu+aQO39NBTXFLF2RMkyQS3N9ESgYzry3miIrIU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CZ5gn7q96oEpqkH096Obk+RdRZuGpwHAMzEVRouE42SN7VsW/Cj/1RUwbayBxV5pEGOPyzm13nbcbOhf4Nc4TCCJ4LIY2yqeHXmyE9L6AAFo6BgFNBDmETsZBe1ydJJfq5tMkTG97H2YFW8/YGc+q44cfgZOMvA2yWtoIXMcalg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=VMQhaqiL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="VMQhaqiL" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEB14C4CEF5; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 14:48:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1762354082; bh=oO/Pgu+aQO39NBTXFLF2RMkyQS3N9ESgYzry3miIrIU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VMQhaqiLY0d9KDFDKrNo8fxRE93G/BhOZYEfiS3eEBdNnTtSFz0qga9mhACrEU+di l4UoiRweOmodboFRyIGd4gy46rXp+puEJFVGHkTbwwouWEiYnGd+yvnDcbr83R24wt irIpOZg1XpaycZQj44GWPErB9UzMowQqOPkKjv79G6wYVhLtFIDsPjZcmQ41ntwSMP OCDlsWDo6azvLIFyD1nsYq9JSN7l1NOgHF93+zGG5p8YqE5Iszk/Z3ngCZRNdzy2df 2ElfdxIdQH2kqc1brZCL16gMsdyXhuhbgV1PxhETiPGMYEJRWtqPAyf9x6MGzO9z+m k1YuMAmTYkIFg== Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 09:48:01 -0500 From: Mike Snitzer To: Chuck Lever Cc: Christoph Hellwig , NeilBrown , Jeff Layton , Olga Kornievskaia , Dai Ngo , Tom Talpey , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Lever Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/12] NFSD: Remove alignment size checking Message-ID: References: <20251103165351.10261-1-cel@kernel.org> <20251103165351.10261-6-cel@kernel.org> <176220902556.1793333.10293656800242618512@noble.neil.brown.name> <35ddc8b0-2727-453e-b970-07b493e21f93@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 09:38:33AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On 11/5/25 7:52 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 09:14:09AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > >>>> It might be good to capture here *why* the check is removed. > >>>> Is it because alignments never exceed PAGE_SIZE, or because the code is > >>>> quite capable of handling larger alignments > >>>> (I haven't been following the conversation closely..) > >>> > >>> I'm still trying to understand why it was added in the first place :) > >> > >> I'm trying to understand what action you'd like me to take. Should I > >> drop this patch? > > > > With "it" I meant the check. І think Mike explain this was due to a > > PAGE_SIZE bound buffer originally, and in that context it makes sense. > > Without the explanation I don't understand the rationale for adding the > > check in the first place. > > Agreed, Mike's original patch has no explanatory comment, and there > needs to be one. Mike, can you suggest a one or two sentence comment > and I will replace this patch with one that adds the comment. I replied yesterday suggesting you just fold 5 into 3. > >>> But I'm also completely lost in the maze of fixup patches. > >> Several people have asked me to collapse the fix-ups into a single > >> patch. We would lose some history and attributions doing that. Does > >> anyone have other thoughts? > > > > The action I'd see is to collapse the series into reviewable chunks. > > I.e., fold the addition of the direct I/O writes into a single patch > > that has all the policy decisions and documents them, leaving only > > clearly separate prep patches separate. > Meaning: combine the patches from 3/12 to 12/12 into a single patch. But if you elect to fold all of 3 to 12, definitely add your Co-developed-by: