From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 6D96832E149 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 14:38:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762353515; cv=none; b=Hyinp3pf2zp8QiO/tbQSVc7AV850Me7KX6sLWxJWTFCL7C3kGKnQmnxW+P+clzWg2XCU075k5A0RCJMKZfxvEyGh0XZV/8GyE7Yz/msmlcQG+Hb3iVUJbMeWu5NVp+HoXSvYC5B7XeZg+TeU5rW7lQ9iygiD7aB5Hwws5SZectA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762353515; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Y/0yUYPPT14/aZcPmAB5M/Rjiz6pf19cHbrvX8yFhf4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=idJMeKMu+OIYD7NdQycNaM3UKEKcpPxmmB+03pWpcNrn+CZjk0gAElw2kf6BOHJ9+Q7FREe+5Cl2zvfC5T1DlTx659gLJGPVzqBMQedjUOCDBWW2BaZww0q3cxTRwDKltcT6L4s5xm7OOOk858ZteftLT5x+tPvZDeVUdYI6FJE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=gk1c7nC6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="gk1c7nC6" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 78951C4CEF5; Wed, 5 Nov 2025 14:38:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1762353515; bh=Y/0yUYPPT14/aZcPmAB5M/Rjiz6pf19cHbrvX8yFhf4=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=gk1c7nC6hQQH0GnoqZRrl5ONTjAuhhVbEG2Cmr1Ns5MBX4ZV+4+bbkHJ0ebxrPXhz KR3TPW1xakn6Jy4VVGP+wmGVjGNc3a2Yn2FN0CuOPL5NzUivDDUg2M1PfqyuxLdKYR nnFwMc1wVkBcSzMJll5YiM+ExY6eELHFOQHRfZhTEyD0kof02ggSbQtKIBFaZoo6lO 5TIzt807UEH75taIeFxfHdOXcDSYnwuVWcqJNEdtO8LfiO5ZnXAR4utJPaydN0jgkI ao8DzgDVRf1Otav2zQs1fEJ7Sf3dBsLoqQMGkTZ7y9LWAQ4MrMl+P0+0cKIK9NyNHx GXImva4/5ve8Q== Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 09:38:33 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/12] NFSD: Remove alignment size checking To: Christoph Hellwig , Mike Snitzer Cc: NeilBrown , Jeff Layton , Olga Kornievskaia , Dai Ngo , Tom Talpey , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Lever References: <20251103165351.10261-1-cel@kernel.org> <20251103165351.10261-6-cel@kernel.org> <176220902556.1793333.10293656800242618512@noble.neil.brown.name> <35ddc8b0-2727-453e-b970-07b493e21f93@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Chuck Lever Organization: kernel.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11/5/25 7:52 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 09:14:09AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>> It might be good to capture here *why* the check is removed. >>>> Is it because alignments never exceed PAGE_SIZE, or because the code is >>>> quite capable of handling larger alignments >>>> (I haven't been following the conversation closely..) >>> >>> I'm still trying to understand why it was added in the first place :) >> >> I'm trying to understand what action you'd like me to take. Should I >> drop this patch? > > With "it" I meant the check. І think Mike explain this was due to a > PAGE_SIZE bound buffer originally, and in that context it makes sense. > Without the explanation I don't understand the rationale for adding the > check in the first place. Agreed, Mike's original patch has no explanatory comment, and there needs to be one. Mike, can you suggest a one or two sentence comment and I will replace this patch with one that adds the comment. >>> But I'm also completely lost in the maze of fixup patches. >> Several people have asked me to collapse the fix-ups into a single >> patch. We would lose some history and attributions doing that. Does >> anyone have other thoughts? > > The action I'd see is to collapse the series into reviewable chunks. > I.e., fold the addition of the direct I/O writes into a single patch > that has all the policy decisions and documents them, leaving only > clearly separate prep patches separate. Meaning: combine the patches from 3/12 to 12/12 into a single patch. -- Chuck Lever