Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:21:38PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > I don't have any objections to pulling everything except patches 8 and > > > 10 for testing this week. > > > > That would be great. I now have a series to return the ERR_PTR > > from __filemap_get_folio which will cause a minor conflict, but > > I think that's easy enough for Linux to handle. > > Ok, done. > > > > > > > 1. Does zonefs need to revalidate mappings? The mappings are 1:1 so I > > > don't think it does, but OTOH zone pointer management might complicate > > > that. > > > > Adding Damien. > > > > > 2. How about porting the writeback iomap validation to use this > > > mechanism? (I suspect Dave might already be working on this...) > > > > What is "this mechanism"? Do you mean the here removed ->iomap_valid > > ? writeback calls into ->map_blocks for every block while under the > > folio lock, so the validation can (and for XFS currently is) done > > in that. Moving it out into a separate method with extra indirect > > functiona call overhead and interactions between the methods seems > > like a retrograde step to me. > > Sorry, I should've been more specific -- can xfs writeback use the > validity cookie in struct iomap and thereby get rid of struct > xfs_writepage_ctx entirely? Already asked and answered in the same thread: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230109225453.GQ1971568@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > 2. Do we need to revalidate mappings for directio writes? I think the > > > answer is no (for xfs) because the ->iomap_begin call will allocate > > > whatever blocks are needed and truncate/punch/reflink block on the > > > iolock while the directio writes are pending, so you'll never end up > > > with a stale mapping. > > > > Yes. > > Er... yes as in "Yes, we *do* need to revalidate directio writes", or > "Yes, your reasoning is correct"? > > --D
