linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 5/6] f2fs: implement iomap operations

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YdS43f15g1enklVX@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:15:09 -0800
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To:     Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 5/6] f2fs: implement iomap operations

On 12/30, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2021/12/3 5:28, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 12/02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > On 12/02, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:00:47AM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > On 12/02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/02, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 10:04:11PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2021/12/2 12:15, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:10:41AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Why not relocating this check before f2fs_map_blocks()?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Wait, it supports DIO in multi-device image after commit 	71f2c8206202
> > > > > > > > ("f2fs: multidevice: support direct IO"), how about
> > > > > > > > checking with f2fs_allow_multi_device_dio()?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Okay, that was not the case when I sent this patch originally.  We'll need to
> > > > > > > update this to support multiple devices.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Chao/Eric, does this make sense?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > > > @@ -4070,11 +4070,10 @@ static int f2fs_iomap_begin(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t length,
> > > > > >                  }
> > > > > >                  if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!__is_valid_data_blkaddr(map.m_pblk)))
> > > > > >                          return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > -               iomap->addr = blks_to_bytes(inode, map.m_pblk);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -               if (WARN_ON_ONCE(f2fs_is_multi_device(F2FS_I_SB(inode))))
> > > > > > -                       return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > -               iomap->bdev = inode->i_sb->s_bdev;
> > > > > > +               iomap->bdev = map->m_multidev_dio ? map.m_bdev :
> > > > > 
> > > > > correction:			map.m_multidev_dio
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I guess so, but why doesn't f2fs_map_blocks() just always set m_bdev to the
> > > > correct block device?  What is the point of m_multidev_dio?
> > > 
> > > It seems we can simply assign iomap->bdev = map.m_bdev, and remove
> > > map->m_multidev_dio.
> > 
> > Ok, it was used in previous get_block flow, but I think it'd be worth to keep it
> > to show by f2fs_map_blocks tracepoint.
> 
> The last version wasn't sent into mailing list?

No, will post it again soon.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > - Eric
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > > Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel