On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 12:51:49PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 10:51:36AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> > On 01/10/2023 14:23, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 9/29/23 15:49, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:27:08AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/stat.h b/include/uapi/linux/stat.h
> > > > > index 7cab2c65d3d7..c99d7cac2aa6 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/stat.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/stat.h
> > > > > @@ -127,7 +127,10 @@ struct statx {
> > > > > __u32 stx_dio_mem_align; /* Memory buffer alignment
> > > > > for direct I/O */
> > > > > __u32 stx_dio_offset_align; /* File offset alignment
> > > > > for direct I/O */
> > > > > /* 0xa0 */
> > > > > - __u64 __spare3[12]; /* Spare space for future expansion */
> > > > > + __u32 stx_atomic_write_unit_max;
> > > > > + __u32 stx_atomic_write_unit_min;
> > > >
> > > > Maybe min first and then max? That seems a bit more natural, and a
> > > > lot of the
> > > > code you've written handle them in that order.
> >
> > ok, I think it's fine to reorder
> >
> > > >
> > > > > +#define STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ATOMIC 0x00400000 /* File
> > > > > supports atomic write operations */
> > > >
> > > > How would this differ from stx_atomic_write_unit_min != 0?
> >
> > Yeah, I suppose that we can just not set this for the case of
> > stx_atomic_write_unit_min == 0.
>
> Please use the STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ATOMIC flag to indicate that the
> filesystem, file and underlying device support atomic writes when
> the values are non-zero. The whole point of the attribute mask is
> that the caller can check the mask for supported functionality
> without having to read every field in the statx structure to
> determine if the functionality it wants is present.
^^ Seconding what Dave said.
--D
> -Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
