From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
gfs2@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] iomap: hide ioends from the generic writeback code
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 06:41:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250618044123.GC28041@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJnrk1bgWwmE8XeYe4gRrYCZFwTsn5JT3Aw7B+morrOLiZowFg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 12:22:46PM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 3:55 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> >
> > Replace the ioend pointer in iomap_writeback_ctx with a void *wb_ctx
> > one to facilitate non-block, non-ioend writeback for use. Rename
> > the submit_ioend method to writeback_submit and make it mandatory so
>
> I'm confused as to whether this is mandatory or not - afaict from the
> code, it's only needed if wpc->wb_ctx is also set. It seems like it's
> ok if a filesystem doesn't define ops->writeback_submit so long as
> they don't also set wpc->wb_ctx, but if they do set
> ops->writeback_submit but don't set wpc->wb_ctx then they shouldn't
> expect ->writeback_submit() to be called.
In a way yes. But I don't really understand how a file system could
work without either, unless the folio size and the block size are always
equal.
> It seems like there's a
> tight interdependency between the two, it might be worth mentioning
> that in the documentation to make that more clear. Or alternatively,
> just always calling wpc->ops->writeback_submit() in iomap_writepages()
> and having the caller check that wpc->wb_ctx is valid.
Do you mean the callee here? Otherwise I'm a bit confused about this
sentence.
> > - - ``submit_ioend``: Allows the file systems to hook into writeback bio
> > - submission.
> > - This might include pre-write space accounting updates, or installing
> > - a custom ``->bi_end_io`` function for internal purposes, such as
> > - deferring the ioend completion to a workqueue to run metadata update
> > - transactions from process context before submitting the bio.
> > - This function is optional.
> > + - ``writeback_submit``: Submit the previous built writeback context.
>
> It might be helpful here to add "This function must be supplied by the
> filesystem", especially since the paragraph above has that line for
> writeback_range()
Ok.
> > struct iomap_writeback_ops {
> > /*
> > - * Required, performs writeback on the passed in range
> > + * Performs writeback on the passed in range
>
> Is the reasoning behind removing "Required" that it's understood that
> the default is it's required, so there's no need to explicitly state
> that?
Yes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-18 4:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-17 10:54 refactor the iomap writeback code v2 Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 01/11] iomap: pass more arguments using struct iomap_writepage_ctx Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 17:54 ` Joanne Koong
2025-06-18 4:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 02/11] iomap: cleanup the pending writeback tracking in iomap_writepage_map_blocks Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 03/11] iomap: refactor the writeback interface Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 18:33 ` Joanne Koong
2025-06-18 4:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 04/11] iomap: hide ioends from the generic writeback code Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 19:22 ` Joanne Koong
2025-06-18 4:41 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 05/11] iomap: add public helpers for uptodate state manipulation Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 06/11] iomap: move all ioend handling to ioend.c Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 19:35 ` Joanne Koong
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 07/11] iomap: rename iomap_writepage_map to iomap_writeback_folio Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 19:44 ` Joanne Koong
2025-06-18 4:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 08/11] iomap: move folio_unlock out of iomap_writeback_folio Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 09/11] iomap: export iomap_writeback_folio Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 22:00 ` Joanne Koong
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 10/11] iomap: replace iomap_folio_ops with iomap_write_ops Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 22:25 ` Joanne Koong
2025-06-18 4:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-17 10:55 ` [PATCH 11/11] iomap: add read_folio_range() handler for buffered writes Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-26 14:59 ` refactor the iomap writeback code v2 Andrew Price
2025-06-27 7:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-07 12:07 ` Andrew Price
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=20250618044123.GC28041@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=gfs2@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=joannelkoong@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).