From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 B04CD3546C0; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 04:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790138646; cv=none; b=iiLaDP0XHjF4nmMqJT77zRUfdcOxVbXSZo3rrHsjzljljBZ8rCUfyByz5r5R3DRdECPvCdUYcfeZPkorsoDACaIOJ5cOcmqLbpfhZRyWn2Db6FmBbb9y4p+PvEzPyaw2uPf8H/0RyLZZ/v20V2GYKLNFjOhJ7TmLIE9CPLoWuQw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790138646; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3K1In4nT3i2HdiuMdKKzMjhK07IZEuKn6Ukoh+Vhlys=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mRqzfC6h2lCUVHF1tmHdac/LLMvqHPInqAYsNCk88pz3Irf7hKDUUfe61gW4g4LjxEyyg3ZK+Av2MwFzdbPCR4SNtQTV5GBWAHnSjl7XSwdEv0jyiYG+G4sapk/R+iPAG4vmhUY4XVrhaWMGhSvLeCDGi2bMIPHObfaswb3vf50= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=JOydNZmk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="JOydNZmk" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=3rrTkfCLkv5vG8mm0BkucV5d5ipKmcNjzN+oEKrrF4Y=; b=JOydNZmkvLmfHed3Px4rMYO9fW ovH3G1XC9S1RqxA9m4xOFtseOap20xWrt11xXV9ro3mhmrMkwLiQYjNx9DJ5OU/jVvreTwXo7wkz7 E1RmjRTmmDGMGPxsBWYQg7xSUEeom5MHDX9CHR1Q4ZreWi/JrfahFI/iCKtQ8HNGSMoQ2dhqsLcdd 2SfRB5K4vBZ5g/6EgsFwSXMO/pALL7eqXnGTTnUKUmY+YTY/dtuus6GWDlk6fsqjUDYTUemDMYNPE 1Tcaegw/NCnx2HYskpeIz3PqJkEAbcypYR6nU9GSgrKqBcV4Y/NKFmDUOpnxl/f+lLsiPYVaScByF 3j9NSTaw==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1x9Epv-0000000780Q-3ycD; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 04:44:03 +0000 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:44:03 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrey Albershteyn Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Albershteyn , djwong@kernel.org, ebiggers@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, Carlos Maiolino , fsverity@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 15/21] xfs: add fs-verity support Message-ID: References: <20260918111539.1003439-1-aalbersh@kernel.org> <20260918111539.1003439-16-aalbersh@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@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: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 03:27:54PM +0200, Andrey Albershteyn wrote: > > > > Yeah, but what is the ilock trying to protect against? ilock is > > the innermost sleeping lock and protects modifications to the > > inode fields and the extent mapping. Higher level synchronization > > is done using the iolock and the mmaplock (which is already taken > > here). > > > > hmm maybe I don't understand what you addressing here but don't I > need ilock for xfs_itruncate_extents() used with this transaction. > So, doing extent removal. > > With this function I want to remove post EOF pages from pagecache > and then remove post EOF extents on that inode. > > iolock is already hold, mmaplock is for pagecache truncation and > ilock for extents removal. So there should be no reason to hold it over the call to truncate_inode_pages. I.e., you should be able to move the locking and ijoin below that.