From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 01/39] vfs: dedpue: return loff_t
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:09:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180606150905.GC9426@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegun8HyjODXguHstxYrGE2nuSoCCicaHT3yfYWMkxxmVWg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:33:22AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:43:01PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >> f_op->dedupe_file_range() gets a u64 length to dedup and returns an ssize_t
> >> actual length deduped. This breaks badly on 32bit archs since the returned
> >> length will be truncated and possibly overflow into the sign bit (xfs and
> >> ocfs2 are affected, btrfs limits actual length to 16MiB).
> >
> > Can we just make it return 0 vs errno? The only time we return
> > a different length than the one passed in is due to the btrfs cap.
> >
> > Given that this API started out on btrfs we should just do the cap
> > everywhere to not confuse userspace.
>
> And that's a completely arbitrary cap; sure btrfs started out with
> that, but there's no fundamental reason for that becoming the global
> limit. Xfs now added a different, larger limit, so based on what
> reason should that limit be reduced?
>
> I don't care either way, but at this stage I'm not going to change
> this patch, unless there's a very good reason to do so, because if I
> do someone will come and suggest another improvement, ad-infinitum...
I think we should hoist the MAX_RW_COUNT/2 limit to the VFS helpers
since afaict we generally cap max IO per call at MAX_RW_COUNT. (I
probably should've capped ocfs2 back when I did xfs, but forgot). If
btrfs wants to keep their lower (16M) limit then they're free to do so;
the interface documentation allows for this. One of the btrfs
developers seems to be working on a patch series to raise the limit[1]
anyway.
--D
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg78392.html
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-06 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20180529144339.16538-1-mszeredi@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <20180529144339.16538-2-mszeredi@redhat.com>
2018-06-04 8:43 ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 01/39] vfs: dedpue: return loff_t Christoph Hellwig
[not found] ` <CAJfpegun8HyjODXguHstxYrGE2nuSoCCicaHT3yfYWMkxxmVWg@mail.gmail.com>
2018-06-06 15:09 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180606150905.GC9426@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
--cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).