On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 09:47:28PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 09:32:37AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > In turn, this means that extending write zero range would have either > > physically zeroed delalloc extents or skipped unwritten blocks, > > depending on the situation. Personally, I don't think it really matters > > which as there is no real guarantee that "all blocks not previously > > written to are unwritten," for example, but rather just that "all blocks > > not written to return zeroes on read." > > Yes. > > > For that reason, I'm _hoping_ > > that we can keep this simple and just deal with some potential spurious > > zeroing on folios that are already dirty, but I'm open to arguments > > against that. > > I can't see one. But we really should fine a way to write all this > including the arguments for an again down. > Indeed. If the first non-rfc pass ultimately makes this tradeoff, I'll plan to document the behavior in the code and the reasoning and tradeoffs in the commit log so it can be reviewed. Brian
