From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (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 6CFA524502D for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752493239; cv=none; b=rY8J/DPEx1BC9lHDhclfWxXcWk9pJjPCHZmF6j1fw5Xy9zaprAnSTQko1d2WY3Oo2BoAv71vVrazs3/Jcs9I3x3pcADtL0k0S9eYEwL3+WpRcbcccoKr1HOHKBSXBJL54BFayLlsybIT+iqIU9/YQebUTp6W6iIxD7klsVlI0j0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752493239; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0FEjbi5VVykfHO0uISkkN0dQw/0K2FcnbLFcq32RoMI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X6PMTPcUiDdcJxFC6djma9CW78htGA0+uZ1NQxUTpkcK8wzL0uPxN0UtAFfsfos4HtWjlsn1YEFtpx64+Obz7QMPy4T9U5iQgbIwo57gGsHKDdYWsWUb0AJnF2VBjlV0H8Us+UBzCsqqYDRxl0XJZXEgzPRBInkKh4Q7rh5+R3o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 8638B227A8E; Mon, 14 Jul 2025 13:40:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 13:40:30 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Joanne Koong , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, miklos@szeredi.hu, brauner@kernel.org, anuj20.g@samsung.com, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] fuse: use iomap for buffered writes Message-ID: <20250714114030.GA1847@lst.de> References: <20250709221023.2252033-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com> <20250709221023.2252033-2-joannelkoong@gmail.com> <20250712044611.GI2672029@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250712044611.GI2672029@frogsfrogsfrogs> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 09:46:11PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: [fullquote deleted. Any chance you could only quote the actually relevant parts as per usual email ettiquette?] > > @@ -1419,6 +1449,15 @@ static ssize_t fuse_cache_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from) > > goto out; > > written = direct_write_fallback(iocb, from, written, > > fuse_perform_write(iocb, from)); > > Random unrelatd question: does anyone know why fuse handles IOCB_DIRECT > in its fuse_cache_{read,write}_iter functions and /also/ sets > ->direct_IO? I thought filesystems only did one or the other, not both. Nothing really should be setting ->direct_IO these days except for legacy reasons. It's another one of those method that aren't methods but just callbacks that require file system specific context.