[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWV/JBxrrGXzY0gr@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 21:48:20 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, ming.lei@...hat.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, roger.pau@...rix.com, colyli@...e.de,
kent.overstreet@...il.com, joern@...ybastard.org,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at, vigneshr@...com,
sth@...ux.ibm.com, hoeppner@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
gor@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, clm@...com, josef@...icpanda.com,
dsterba@...e.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
nico@...xnic.net, xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, agruenba@...hat.com, jack@...e.com,
konishi.ryusuke@...il.com, dchinner@...hat.com,
linux@...ssschuh.net, min15.li@...sung.com, dlemoal@...nel.org,
willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hare@...e.de,
p.raghav@...sung.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, gfs2@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
yangerkun@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-next v2 01/16] block: add a new helper to get
inode from block_device
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:35:56AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Thanks for the advice! In case I'm understanding correctly, do you mean
> that all other fs/drivers that is using pages versions can safely switch
> to folio versions now?
If you never allocate a high-order folio pages are identical to folios.
So yes, we can do folio based interfaces only, and also use that as
an opportunity to convert over the callers.
> By the way, my orginal idea was trying to add a new field 'bd_flags'
> in block_devcie, and then add a new bit so that bio_check_ro() will
> only warn once for each partition. Now that this patchset will be quite
> complex, I'll add a new bool field 'bd_ro_warned' to fix the above
> problem first, and then add 'bd_flags' once this patchset is done.
Yes, please do a minimal version if you can find space where the
rmw cycles don't cause damage to neighbouring fields. Or just leave
the current set of warnings in if it's too hard.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists