On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:07:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:52:18PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Replace the open-coded logic to decide if a file has a multi-fsb > > allocation unit to a helper to make the code easier to read. > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c | 4 ++-- > > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 9 +++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c > > index 19e11d1da6607..c17b5858fed62 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c > > @@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ xfs_can_free_eofblocks( > > * forever. > > */ > > end_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, (xfs_ufsize_t)XFS_ISIZE(ip)); > > - if (XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip) && mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize > 1) > > + if (xfs_inode_has_bigallocunit(ip)) > > end_fsb = xfs_rtb_roundup_rtx(mp, end_fsb); > > This makes no sense with the upcoming forced alignment changes to > this code. > > That essentially brings "big alloc unit" to the data device based on > extent size hints, and it will need to do different rounding > calculations depending on whether it is a RT inode or not. Hence I > don't think hiding the RT specific allocation/truncation setup like > this is compatible with those changes - it will simply have to be > undone before it can be reworked.... So undo it when you and John and Catherine have a full patchset implementing forced alignment. --D > -Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
