Re: [RFC 1/2] xfs: add flags field to xfs_alloc_file_space

[Lukas Herbolt <lukas@herbolt.com>]

On 2026-03-04 10:46, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> On 3/4/2026 10:31 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
>>>>> @@ -646,7 +646,8 @@ int
>>>>>   xfs_alloc_file_space(
>>>>>   	struct xfs_inode	*ip,
>>>>>   	xfs_off_t		offset,
>>>>> -	xfs_off_t		len)
>>>>> +	xfs_off_t		len,
>>>>> +	uint32_t flags)
>>>> 
>>>> Messed up indentation.
>>>> 
>>> Oops.
>>> 
>>>> Given that we've been through this for a lot of iterations, what
>>>> about you just take Lukas' existing patch and help improving it?
>>> 
>>> I did review his patch[1]. The patches were broken when I tested it 
>>> but I
>>> did not get a reply from him after I reported them. That is why I 
>>> decided
>>> to send a new version.
>>> 
>>> [1] 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/wmxdwtvahubdga73cgzprqtj7fxyjgx5kxvr4cobtl6ski2i6y@ic2g3bfymkwi/
>> 
>> If I properly got the timeline, you barely gave him time to reply:
>> 
>> your reply to the original patch: Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 14:44:05 
>> +0000
>> your RFC time: Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:08:40 +0100
>> 
>> You are around enough time to know that people usually requires more
>> than 24 hours to reply.
>> 
> 
> I started working on this in parallel before I realized it was already 
> being worked on. I could have waited a bit longer after responding to 
> his patches. :) . Sorry for that.
> 
>> Please, work with him to get this done. It's not a nice thing to do 
>> IMHO
>> to pass over somebody's else work if you are aware there is work being
>> done.
>> 
>> FWIW you also didn't Cc'ed him in your RFC as you used the wrong email
>> address... I'm fixing the headers so he gets aware of it.
>> 
> 
> Yes, I replied back to the thread with the correct ID [1].
> 
>> If by any means I got the timeline wrong above, forget everything I 
>> said
>> other than the "work with him to get this done".
>> 
> 
> His patches are not working properly. It is almost a week since I sent 
> that message on his thread. I have messaged him again on how to 
> proceed. I will wait and see what he replies :)

Sorry, the original CC somehow messed the filtering and it fell trough 
the cracks
of the email folders. If you agree I would add the `two stage Ext4 like` 
into the
original patch still utilizing the xfs_falloc_zero_range. Doing the the 
default
XFS_BMAPI_PREALLOC and sending the XFS_BMAPI_ZERO|XFS_BMAPI_CONVERT if 
the WR_ZERO
is set and the device supports it.

I think that would still be quite readable without the of duplicating 
the code.

-- 
-lhe