From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 594D7563298 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790191219; cv=none; b=qYOM2yRj7c42h5J58xwKDHrJeq+T42cFYsE4zKHqw4zs7xMzgR5d4lh2Sqr9c4PnvbO8ijxsObAzOfNWaRei2SenapdBpIJ/J7L7+PXajnCxlFpjfzqFGDDNr5A/iI2T3cEkjGveuumdokEsV73w8GiTtem9FZu0PkzkKYlArMQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790191219; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ioXyjOuwdYpfZ5HIcs5nTUee+G201iBJg1fwducGZEQ=; h=From:In-Reply-To:References:To:Cc:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=lP3H6me9ft5CfljQLgTA1I+ughFxVQESDg0wqGh4FrTxV7MHqd2UI87mvFC6jxLASCj35sLYPs8J3oLx0DKgXV3EDXBtRLZo4zGM5jykpc68IdJnrc2y8XfTVfG96r9fpUwNrmDIDw4sg5TcqxywR+4k5OObWJfwmHhlVd4UWHY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=Vn/rtzNq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Vn/rtzNq" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1790191217; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1bI6mvEFelfZiMWn4pvpeSAKBQZjhfAcDhVuRr7N/WE=; b=Vn/rtzNqhTgUezfnyeboi6LqVyff5hSPzKpKvyJ3nzhJ8ZIzBYKih6YG6wGbrfv7GUArSh LTL52KJwTj5Fp/ORLtJsDGbA+GUJAON4rve42J8eYLsRg50L6AGutVfv2FlnGpVOvsjyPE IoIoUEEkuhtFBz8uSI4luf17rWXiJ7o= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-527-WomQRXq2MxOaulsagakdEQ-1; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:20:12 -0400 X-MC-Unique: WomQRXq2MxOaulsagakdEQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: WomQRXq2MxOaulsagakdEQ_1790191210 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36FB5195DE5A; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (unknown [10.44.32.54]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCCF18005B8; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <20260921230755.1133425-1-pc@manguebit.org> To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Paulo Alcantara , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, netfs@lists.linux.dev, Christian Brauner , Namjae Jeon , Ronnie Sahlberg , Shyam Prasad N , Tom Talpey , Bharath SM , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] netfs: clear post-EOF pagecache when extending a file via write Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfs@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 20:20:05 +0100 Message-ID: <1519834.1790191205@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: _3KG9Fsvf9nKezvZOq3eqrpnhfSBeFP_pDji8lV5N1I_1790191210 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1519833.1790191205.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > +=09int netfs_clear_stale_post_eof(struct inode *inode, unsigned long l= ong from, > > +=09=09=09=09 unsigned long long to, bool nowait); >=20 > Should this be uoff_t? Or even loff_t? uoff_t please. There's no reason to have a signed value there. Also, I ha= ve a patch queued with Christian for next to convert netfs generally to use uoff_t where it can. It's a lot shorter than unsigned long long. David