linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] ext4: Add atomic block write documentation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <h6wsijwvwjwynsb3ecmg3aanih5lijpyq22acbqcheszltixiw@3iz4nwhao4cd>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 20:13:26 +0200
From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, 
	"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 
	Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] ext4: Add atomic block write documentation

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 08:10:05AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 10:48:17AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 03:31:17PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > >
> > > This is likely the final state for XFS merge-window and I hope to
> > > send it to Linus as soon as the merge window opens.
> >
> > Very cool!
> >
> > I've taken a quick peek, and it looks like the only XFS-specific
> > atomic writes is an XFS mount option.  Am I missing anything?
> >
> > I want to keep merging the ext4 and xfs atomic write patchsets simple,
> > so I'd prefer not to have any git-level dependencies on the branches.
> > If we're confident that the xfs changes are going to land at the next
> > merge window,
> 
> /I/ for one hope that the xfs changes land this time around.

Yes, so far everything looks good, and we've atomic writes on for-next for a
while as I mentioned too (although a rebase yesterday required to have those
patches re-introduced with different hashes, the content is still the same).

Ted, I'm not exactly sure what kind of git-level dependency you have in mind,
but just to play safe here, bear in mind the atomic writes in merged on top of
Axboe's block-6.15.

> 
> > given that the ext4 patch set is pretty much ready to
> > land in the ext4 tree, how about updating the documentation in a
> > follow-up patch.
> >
> > I can either append the commit which generalizes the documentation to
> > the ext4 tree, or if it turns out that there is a v6 needed of the
> > ext4 atomic write patchset, we can fold the documentation update into
> > the "ext4: add atomic block write documentation" commit and rename it
> > to "Documentation: add atomic write block documentation."
> >
> > Does that seem reasonable?
> 
> I think it's ok to combine them after the merge.  It would be useful to
> have a single programmer's guide that takes a person through the whole
> process of determining the block device's atomic write capabilities,
> formatting either an XFS or ext4 filesystem appropriately, and then
> presents a toy program to discover the atomic write limits on an open
> file and uses that to queue a single IO.

This sounds indeed good to me too.

Have a nice weekend all.

Carlos

> 
> --D
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > 					- Ted
> >
>