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 9A2ECC77B7C for ; Wed, 31 May 2023 04:16:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234078AbjEaEQc (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2023 00:16:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59870 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230401AbjEaEQb (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2023 00:16:31 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22CFDBE for ; Tue, 30 May 2023 21:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 99A8668B05; Wed, 31 May 2023 06:16:26 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 06:16:26 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: David Sterba Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , "open list:BTRFS FILE SYSTEM" , naohiro.aota@wdc.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: don't hold an extra reference for redirtied buffers Message-ID: <20230531041626.GA32582@lst.de> References: <20230508145839.43725-1-hch@lst.de> <20230508145839.43725-4-hch@lst.de> <20230509225737.GK32559@twin.jikos.cz> <20230515092254.GA21580@lst.de> <20230530155648.GB30110@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230530155648.GB30110@twin.jikos.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 05:56:48PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > I'd appreciate more eyes on this patch, with the indirections and > > > writeback involved it's not clear to me that we don't need the list at > > > all. > > > > My suspicision is that Aoto-san wanted the extra safety of the extra > > reference because he didn't want to trust or hadn't noticed the > > extent_buffer_under_io() magic. Auto-san, can you confirm or deny? :) > > The number of patches above this one in the queue is increasing so it > would get harder to remove it. I took another look and agree that > regarding the references it's safe but would still like a confirmation. As stated, I am very confident that this is safe based on all my recent work with the extent_buffer code base. I'd love to hear from Aota, but there's not much more I can add here myself.