Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iomap: fix zero padding data issue in concurrent append writes

[Long Li <leo.lilong@huawei.com>]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 10:56:59PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:13:49AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > >  static bool
> > >  iomap_ioend_can_merge(struct iomap_ioend *ioend, struct iomap_ioend *next)
> > >  {
> > > +	size_t size = iomap_ioend_extent_size(ioend);
> > > +
> > 
> > The function name is kind of misleading IMO because this may not
> > necessarily reflect "extent size." Maybe something like
> > _ioend_size_aligned() would be more accurate..?
> 
> Agreed.  What also would be useful is a comment describing the
> function and why io_size is not aligned.
> 

Ok, it will be changed in the next version.

> > 1. It kind of feels like a landmine in an area where block alignment is
> > typically expected. I wonder if a rename to something like io_bytes
> > would help at all with that.
> 
> Fine with me.
> 

While continuing to use io_size may introduce some ambiguity, this can
be adequately addressed through proper documentation. Furthermore,
retaining io_size would minimize code changes. I would like to
confirm whether renaming io_size to io_bytes is truly necessary in
this context.

Thanks,
Long Li