From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com (szxga05-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.191]) (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 C70A919068E; Wed, 4 Dec 2024 09:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.191 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733303309; cv=none; b=LhfhdhR463vtQ9j/J672OenTdEEU1pAFt4CX64uVAhsYDr8ZMj3gQN+oELiDOVJqTmBeHUCSzo7ZpKL54NmVMMpFhKhR+bAMHpgFB/XU8iaQFM/WDmPl9B6cM/iAO4VJoAIs4Blp/shrpWm77RVunEaZujFEtJNJqtAyKLBRIfs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733303309; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qC35SMWN2tr9LeaniR+l4MKRsR8cafaGZgQjHvjkib4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=U+rzKlZPh09VHd4Uc2DUt2yDyGLm70JwjyB1gVGhhvu1s+JpSIaw7VsB7jznVr21Klb9HTy/lha2IScSrwnwxbFBnAV8bnnJIi1OUp1Aj0/KBjwpHueCMMu3PwkeV9a3IsjHfn+RcEAeU3QsFupCY6Hi08DdStY5GjKVr3wHRfQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.191 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.44]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Y3BTC69qMz1kvH4; Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:06:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.126]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70EE9140136; Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:08:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.175.112.188) by dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.126) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:08:24 +0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:06:00 +0800 From: Long Li To: Brian Foster , Dave Chinner CC: , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] iomap: fix zero padding data issue in concurrent append writes Message-ID: References: <20241127063503.2200005-1-leo.lilong@huawei.com> 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="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.126) On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 09:54:41AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > Not sure I see how this is a serialization dependency given that > writeback completion also samples i_size. But no matter, it seems a > reasonable implementation to me to make the submission path consistent > in handling eof. > > I wonder if this could just use end_pos returned from > iomap_writepage_handle_eof()? > > Brian > It seems reasonable to me, but end_pos is block-size granular. We need to pass in a more precise byte-granular end. Thanks, Long Li