Re: [PATCH v6 3/7] fs: iomap: Atomic write support

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 09:05:17AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> 
> > 
> > This new flag needs a documentation update.  What do you think of this?
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/iomap/operations.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/iomap/operations.rst
> > index 8e6c721d23301..279db993be7fa 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/iomap/operations.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/iomap/operations.rst
> > @@ -513,6 +513,16 @@ IOMAP_WRITE`` with any combination of the following enhancements:
> >      if the mapping is unwritten and the filesystem cannot handle zeroing
> >      the unaligned regions without exposing stale contents.
> > + * ``IOMAP_ATOMIC``: This write must be persisted in its entirety or
> > +   not at all.
> > +   The write must not be split into multiple I/O requests.
> > +   The file range to write must be aligned to satisfy the requirements
> > +   of both the filesystem and the underlying block device's atomic
> > +   commit capabilities.
> > +   If filesystem metadata updates are required (e.g. unwritten extent
> > +   conversion or copy on write), all updates for the entire file range
> > +   must be committed atomically as well.
> > +
> >   Callers commonly hold ``i_rwsem`` in shared or exclusive mode before
> >   calling this function.
> 
> Sure, but I would make a couple of tweaks to the beginning:
> 
>  * ``IOMAP_ATOMIC``: This write is to be be issued with torn-write
>    protection. Only a single bio can be created for the write, and the
>    bio must not be split into multiple I/O requests, i.e. flag
>    REQ_ATOMIC must be set.
>    The file range to write must be aligned to satisfy the requirements
>    of both the filesystem and the underlying block device's atomic
>    commit capabilities.
>    If filesystem metadata updates are required (e.g. unwritten extent
>    conversion or copy on write), all updates for the entire file range
>    must be committed atomically as well.
> 
> ok?

Yep, sounds good.

--D

> Thanks,
> John
> 
> 
>