[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260121150320.GA14702@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:03:20 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, fsverity@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
aalbersh@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, tytso@....edu,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, jaegeuk@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: fsverity metadata offset, was: Re: [PATCH v2 0/23] fs-verity
support for XFS with post EOF merkle tree
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 12:44:19PM +0100, Andrey Albershteyn wrote:
> > > I'd leave the ondisk offset as-is, but change the pagecache offset to
> > > roundup(i_size_read(), mapping_max_folio_size_supported()) just to keep
> > > file data and fsverity metadata completely separate.
> >
> > Can we find a way to do that in common code and make ext4 and f2fs do
> > the same?
>
> hmm I don't see what else we could do except providing common offset
> and then use it to map blocks
>
> loff_t fsverity_metadata_offset(struct inode *inode)
> {
> return roundup(i_size_read(), mapping_max_folio_size_supported());
> }
Something like that, yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists