[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3UMV2mB5BkMM5PY@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:14:15 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>,
Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...nel.org>,
Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-karma-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ext2: remove ->writepage
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:49:27AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 13-11-22 17:28:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > ->writepage is a very inefficient method to write back data, and only
> > used through write_cache_pages or a a fallback when no ->migrate_folio
> > method is present.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>
> Looks good! Feel free to add:
The testbot found a problem with this:
ext2_commit_chunk calls write_one_page for the IS_DIRSYNC case,
and write_one_page calls ->writepage.
So I think I need to drop this one for now (none of the other
file systems calls write_one_page). And then think what best
to do about write_one_page/write_one_folio. I suspect just
passing a writepage pointer to them might make most sense,
as they are only used by a few file systems, and the calling
convention with the locked page doesn't lend itself to using
->writepages.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists