On 10/03/2025 12:38, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:20:23AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
On 10/03/2025 11:11, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:54:23AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
On 10/03/2025 10:06, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
index fbed172d6770..bc96b8214173 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
@@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ typedef struct xfs_mount {
bool m_fail_unmount;
bool m_finobt_nores; /* no per-AG finobt resv. */
bool m_update_sb; /* sb needs update in mount */
+ xfs_extlen_t awu_max; /* data device max atomic write */
Could you please rename this to something else? All fields within xfs_mount
follows the same pattern m_<name>. Perhaps m_awu_max?
Fine, but I think I then need to deal with spilling multiple lines to
accommodate a proper comment.
I was going to send a patch replacing it once I had this merged, but giving
Dave's new comments, and the conflicts with zoned devices, you'll need to send a
V5, so, please include this change if nobody else has any objections on keeping
the xfs_mount naming convention.
What branch do you want me to send this against?
I just pushed everything to for-next, so you can just rebase it against for-next
Notice this includes the iomap patches you sent in this series which Christian
picked up. So if you need to re-work something on the iomap patches, you'll
probably need to take this into account.
Your branch includes the iomap changes, so hard to deal with.
For the iomap change, Dave was suggesting a name change only, so not a
major issue.
If you don't plan to change anything related to the iomap (depending on the path
the discussion on path 5/12 takes), I believe all you need to do is remove the
iomap patches from your branch, sending only the xfs patches.
Right
So if we really want to go with a name change, then I could add a patch
to change the name only and include in the v5.
Review comments are always welcome, but I wish that they did not come so
late...
That's why I didn't bother asking you to change xfs_mount until now, I'd do it
myself if you weren't going to send a V5.
But Dave's comments are more than a mere naming convention, but logic
adjusting due to operator precedence.
ok, working on that now.
Cheers,
John
