[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <469988.1579279418@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:43:38 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with determining data presence by examining extents?
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> File systems usually pad zeroes where they have to, typically for
> sub-blocksize writes. Disabling this would break data integrity.
I understand that. I can, however, round up the netfs I/O granule size and
alignment to a multiple of the cachefile I/O block size. Also, I'm doing DIO,
so I have to use block size multiples.
But if the filesystem can avoid bridging large, appropriately sized and
aligned blocks, then I can use it.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists