On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 12:51:49PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 10:51:36AM +0100, John Garry wrote: > > On 01/10/2023 14:23, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On 9/29/23 15:49, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:27:08AM +0000, John Garry wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/stat.h b/include/uapi/linux/stat.h > > > > > index 7cab2c65d3d7..c99d7cac2aa6 100644 > > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/stat.h > > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/stat.h > > > > > @@ -127,7 +127,10 @@ struct statx { > > > > > __u32 stx_dio_mem_align; /* Memory buffer alignment > > > > > for direct I/O */ > > > > > __u32 stx_dio_offset_align; /* File offset alignment > > > > > for direct I/O */ > > > > > /* 0xa0 */ > > > > > - __u64 __spare3[12]; /* Spare space for future expansion */ > > > > > + __u32 stx_atomic_write_unit_max; > > > > > + __u32 stx_atomic_write_unit_min; > > > > > > > > Maybe min first and then max? That seems a bit more natural, and a > > > > lot of the > > > > code you've written handle them in that order. > > > > ok, I think it's fine to reorder > > > > > > > > > > > +#define STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ATOMIC 0x00400000 /* File > > > > > supports atomic write operations */ > > > > > > > > How would this differ from stx_atomic_write_unit_min != 0? > > > > Yeah, I suppose that we can just not set this for the case of > > stx_atomic_write_unit_min == 0. > > Please use the STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ATOMIC flag to indicate that the > filesystem, file and underlying device support atomic writes when > the values are non-zero. The whole point of the attribute mask is > that the caller can check the mask for supported functionality > without having to read every field in the statx structure to > determine if the functionality it wants is present. ^^ Seconding what Dave said. --D > -Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx