[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZiyFFsPlgODpc-e3@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:54:46 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFCv3 7/7] iomap: Optimize data access patterns for filesystems
with indirect mappings
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 08:19:47PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > ...One small problem which I see with this approach is - we might have
> > some non-zero value in ifs->r_b_p when ifs_free() gets called and it
> > might give a warning of non-zero ifs->r_b_p, because we updated
> > ifs->r_b_p during writes to a non-zero value, but the reads
> > never happend. Then during a call to ->release_folio, it will complain
> > of a non-zero ifs->r_b_p.
>
> Yes, we'll have to remove that assertion. I don't think that's a
> problem, do you?
Or refine it, as the parts not read shoud not be uptodate either?
Either way I had another idea to simplify things a bit, but this might
end up beeing even simpler, so I'll stop the hacking on my version
for now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists