[another full quote removed, guys please send properly formatted email] On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:40:56AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > + if (!(flags & IOMAP_DIO_UNALIGNED)) > > + inode_dio_wait(VFS_I(ip)); > > Er... this really confused me when I read it -- my first thought was > "How can we be in the unaligned direct write function but DIO_UNALIGNED > isn't set? Wouldn't we be in some other function if we're doing an > aligned direct write?" > > Then I looked upthread to where Christph said he'd renamed it > IOMAP_DIO_SUBBLOCK, but I didn't think that was sufficiently better: > > if (!(flags & IOMAP_DIO_SUBBLOCK)) > iomap_dio_wait(...); > > This flag doesn't have a 1:1 relationship with the iocb asking for an > (fsblock-)unaligned write or the iocb saying that the write involves > sub-block io -- this flag really means "I require a stable written > mapping, no post-processing (of the disk block) allowed". Would: if (flags & IOMAP_DIO_FORCE_WAIT) inode_dio_wait(VFS_I(ip)); look any better to you? Behavior would be the same.
