On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 12:13:42AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 06:39:46PM +0000, John Garry wrote: > > Dave Chinner thought that names IOMAP_ATOMIC_HW and IOMAP_ATOMIC_SW were > > not appropopiate. Specifically because IOMAP_ATOMIC_HW could actually be > > realised with a SW-based method in the block or md/dm layers. > > > > So rename to IOMAP_ATOMIC_BIO and IOMAP_ATOMIC_FS. > > Looking over the entire series and the already merged iomap code: > there should be no reason at all for having IOMAP_ATOMIC_FS. > The only thing it does is to branch out to > xfs_atomic_write_sw_iomap_begin from xfs_atomic_write_iomap_begin. > > You can do that in a much simpler and nicer way by just having > different iomap_ops for the bio based vs file system based atomics. Agreed - I was going to suggest that, but got distracted by something else and then forgot about it when I got back to writing the email... > I agree with dave that bio is a better term for the bio based > atomic, but please use the IOMAP_ATOMIC_BIO name above instead > of the IOMAP_BIO_ATOMIC actually used in the code if you change > it. Works for me. > > */ > > static inline blk_opf_t iomap_dio_bio_opflags(struct iomap_dio *dio, > > - const struct iomap *iomap, bool use_fua, bool atomic_hw) > > + const struct iomap *iomap, bool use_fua, bool bio_atomic) > > Not new here, but these two bools are pretty ugly. > > I'd rather have a > > blk_opf_t extra_flags; > > in the caller that gets REQ_FUA and REQ_ATOMIC assigned as needed, > and then just clear Yep, that is cleaner.. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
