On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 10:11:27AM +0000, John Garry wrote: > On 08/01/2025 08:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > For I/O to reflinked blocks we always need to write an entire new file > > system block, and the code enforces the file system block alignment for > > the entire file if it has any reflinked blocks. Mirror the larger > > value reported in the statx in the dio_offset_align in the xfs-specific > > XFS_IOC_DIOINFO ioctl for the same reason. > > > > Don't bother adding a new field for the read alignment to this legacy > > ioctl as all new users should use statx instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 11 ++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > > index 0789c18aaa18..20f3cf5391c6 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > > @@ -1204,7 +1204,16 @@ xfs_file_ioctl( > > struct xfs_buftarg *target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip); > > struct dioattr da; > > - da.d_mem = da.d_miniosz = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; > > + da.d_mem = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; > > + > > + /* > > + * See xfs_report_dioalign() why report a potential larger than > > + * sector sizevalue here for COW inodes. > > nit: sizevalue The sentence reads oddly to me; how about: "See xfs_report_dioalign() for an explanation about why we report a value larger than the sector size for COW inodes."? The code change looks ok though. Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> --D > > + */ > > + if (xfs_is_cow_inode(ip)) > > + da.d_miniosz = xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(ip); > > + else > > + da.d_miniosz = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; > > da.d_maxiosz = INT_MAX & ~(da.d_miniosz - 1); > > if (copy_to_user(arg, &da, sizeof(da))) > >
