On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 08:04:19AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 7/21/23 12:15?AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 12:13:05PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> Whether we have a write back cache and are using FUA or don't have > >> a write back cache at all is the same situation. Treat them the same. > >> > >> This makes the IOMAP_DIO_WRITE_FUA name a bit misleading, as we have > >> two cases that provide stable writes: > >> > >> 1) Volatile write cache with FUA writes > >> 2) Normal write without a volatile write cache > >> > >> Rename that flag to IOMAP_DIO_STABLE_WRITE to make that clearer, and > >> update some of the FUA comments as well. > > > > I would have preferred IOMAP_DIO_WRITE_THROUGH, STABLE_WRITES is a flag > > we use in file systems and the page cache for cases where the page > > can't be touched before writeback has completed, e.g. > > QUEUE_FLAG_STABLE_WRITES and SB_I_STABLE_WRITES. > > Good point, it does confuse terminology with stable pages for writes. > I'll change it to WRITE_THROUGH, that is more descriptive for this case. +1 for the name change. With IOMAP_DIO_WRITE_THROUGH, Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> --D Separately: At some point, the definition for IOMAP_DIO_DIRTY needs to grow a type annotation: #define IOMAP_DIO_DIRTY (1U << 31) due (apparently) triggering UBSAN because "1" on its own is a signed constant. If this series goes through my tree then I'll add a trivial patch fixing all of this ... unless you'd rather do it yourself as a patch 9? --D > -- > Jens Axboe >
