From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:42611 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751546AbeAZMPr (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:15:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 04:15:46 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] xfs: track CoW blocks separately in the inode Message-ID: <20180126121546.GB15859@infradead.org> References: <151676027743.12349.3845769501491774512.stgit@magnolia> <151676030942.12349.14467032190779795677.stgit@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <151676030942.12349.14467032190779795677.stgit@magnolia> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:18:29PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong > > Track the number of blocks reserved in the CoW fork so that we can > move the quota reservations whenever we chown, and don't account for > CoW fork delalloc reservations in i_delayed_blks. This should make > chown work properly for quota reservations, enables us to fully > account for real extents in the cow fork in the file stat info, and > improves the post-eof scanning decisions because we're no longer > confusing data fork delalloc extents with cow fork delalloc extents. Just curious: is there any good reason we can't just have an i_extra_blocks field for the delayed and cow blocks? Or is there a place where we care about the difference between the two?