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 52E372EA496 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:40:44 +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=1755765646; cv=none; b=dg3nJvxd6HLsDvmaB9YLra6PGVtEtVkiHlNd197PF5i2HUmLQCHa9a/SJGX/ug9QFsnqnkPnZryQ+VskrsMbwqEvcEIEKGERjoafQPIResPLm8gp7gQzkYJDPJEiTnaNuoWuiTuBQfWSlDT2Gp62vxKKKcMYHgX3uOtJU5M0TbQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755765646; c=relaxed/simple; bh=g4BUJgMyqXGgq3pfrj2NDvkHsHZCgv4bXHpA1uKrBMo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Lcnt8i+hW7JshR7ff8rxyZ/G1EtHeP5C7LJqWWQqcTvi6F3oTKw6qImUAvywcagfTlm5RShqndPe8Q/NPgOGvE2ZOGeA6Kt0fnSkCdSNNRSjeXgmNhnkdn99g15taXbrcBBltPpAv1gqn49sQwTDqq8oDXHuYyf1DiHrb84tjt0= 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 85432227AA8; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:40:38 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:40:37 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Carlos Maiolino Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: implement XFS_IOC_DIOINFO in terms of vfs_getattr Message-ID: <20250821084037.GA29746@lst.de> References: <9aG8Tf3X2d-4A9_uy7q50gPfuQH-xjOf3Bdbw4mJ5ITHbBXXDwYG2uqAYoSKE-pRy5iYgqRbd79paOGW-Sk_SA==@protonmail.internalid> <20250818051348.1486572-1-hch@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@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: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:23:27AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > Do we need to keep this comment that tied to an userspace tool? It think it is a pretty good reminder why it is here. > The issue with randholes is that it uses posix_memalign, and the pointer > size constraint comes from that. > > I couldn't find any details on why this is required, but I'm assuming > it's to keep posix_memalign architecture/implementation independent?! > > So, perhaps instead of being 'randholes' specific, it should specify to > be posix compliant or because posix requires this way? Posix does not require the alignment to be larger than void *. Applications that directly feed the value to posix_memalign do. And maybe that what could go into the comment.