From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (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 16CF21C1757 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 12:17:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728562653; cv=none; b=i8B4o8DCjJSLm1G/lCpu95nH2mG6mDbqqjNu4K4haDuDx+IxMapi1OZZnEUh5lsxeFJXuie7lJhznMqXg3/RO1OXqU6MbWv9YU11QIzDP32gm5u4yBU4pcDNt0d1qB5xs9Ivka4Tg6Eq/tOI9Uxe/aWnBFJ/nX/4iNHlPXrfSGw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728562653; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VsRAS0pMW9QEFEGhtZrE8/hrQkXl1KS0owvA6HihTWA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=s5umSyjSUfuGMwq7hQiGzoWrrc7aQwhUuwpJ3N7fKamWXCh7DLyt6CihbUrKpmFMVU5bKsM0t/9w5RtM33VCgJ4HHvaWutFPEoEu3PjAWkvNZICW2zN0vVdVKyPrb3uZ9LtTWRgkUBA5VNcKctlgvVgWGduSqM44wfq4ynGHVVE= 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=45.249.212.188 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 [172.19.163.48]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XPTH452PPzpWjL; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:15:28 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf100017.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.16]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4619C18007C; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:17:28 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.176.88] (10.174.176.88) by kwepemf100017.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:17:27 +0800 Message-ID: <32717f03-634a-4f39-9f46-e73cca8da46d@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:17:26 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfs@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] cachefiles: Fix incorrect block calculations in __cachefiles_prepare_write() To: David Howells CC: , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20240821024301.1058918-2-wozizhi@huawei.com> <20240821024301.1058918-1-wozizhi@huawei.com> <302546.1728556499@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <304311.1728560215@warthog.procyon.org.uk> From: Zizhi Wo In-Reply-To: <304311.1728560215@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To kwepemf100017.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.16) 在 2024/10/10 19:36, David Howells 写道: > Zizhi Wo wrote: > >> For scenarios such as nfs/cifs, the corresponding bsize is PAGE_SIZE aligned > > cache->bsize is a property of the cache device, not the network filesystems > that might be making use of it (and it might be shared between multiple > volumes from multiple network filesystems, all of which could, in theory, have > different 'block sizes', inasmuch as network filesystems have block sizes). > > David > > Then I was wrong. Thank you for pointing it out. I'll be thinking about new solutions for non-PAGE_SIZE scenarios. Thanks, Zizhi Wo