From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 087B33876CE for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768320736; cv=none; b=FNQGvYzNUWNtZMjAf5CPMyHLGiFaWDFvsE+hnFCm8IsXOiUV3pl1PEwlxdl1kY3JbER/HS/3dkXs/41aO4pH5c3AiKRGe/mXBkdVX2e7rNUMZrvRqg96vc+SLquOUGNcExUghRuAdNwjTOCUeGB9ic+WM/AVssqjgm6E8Bd3h6g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768320736; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Bbgay3xH0HL6qpaZI+QX8lNfNBwTdLpxwSmb6ZtNFAY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dXxAp42ciZWmFXA+M6RLmLlt8/pu0Fbun2kCyWFVssMzXJxj9vj6JcW5LVtjsdQ/oGDMAJrQKWwJGcsAsR92QznXPS1OlwTQYPSce+bNLIAEwuHaq+KnN74TNf8F4aXC6EgmGbpdyC26JHaeAkub0cHzBjAU1NCKkkPi6APxLHY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=jCwwjjWf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="jCwwjjWf" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1768320734; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6uoxS+e0KEmqgRcsAruPreFQtmLGrOONweoxE8QSUzg=; b=jCwwjjWft4t52Mwfk3EVgDyES+EtlGQ+hVF3SmH1lHsbtxzR4G71DSRA74BOdh5aQRkfzi o/eA+LMlt8BuS50hWsDMMSLbZoutjFbG5SR4Mp9efMt/go5OXVfVvLD9qgb8IU8Svp2Rmz gMQULwt3RxJZMFtVUR7X6jkkFOdxvvw= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-121-vLamiVYWPFizZ-ZTtvwD0A-1; Tue, 13 Jan 2026 11:12:05 -0500 X-MC-Unique: vLamiVYWPFizZ-ZTtvwD0A-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: vLamiVYWPFizZ-ZTtvwD0A_1768320724 Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8ACF1954B0B; Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:12:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (unknown [10.22.90.9]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C593030001A2; Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 11:12:01 -0500 From: Brian Foster To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , brauner@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iomap: wait for batched folios to be stable in __iomap_get_folio Message-ID: References: <20260113153943.3323869-1-hch@lst.de> <20260113154855.GH15583@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260113155805.GA3726@lst.de> 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: <20260113155805.GA3726@lst.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 04:58:05PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 07:48:55AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > I wonder if we ought to have a filemap_fbatch_next() that would take > > care of the relocking, revalidation, and stabilization... but this spot > > fix is good as-is. > > Let's wait until we have another user or two. Premature refactoring > tends to backfire. > I agree on not being too aggressive on that... I do like the idea though, so I'll try to keep it in mind if this happens to expand down the road. Thanks for the fix. Brian