[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230929224922.GB11839@google.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 22:49:22 +0000
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
chandan.babu@...cle.com, dchinner@...hat.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Prasad Singamsetty <prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/21] fs/bdev: Add atomic write support info to statx
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:27:08AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/stat.h b/include/uapi/linux/stat.h
> index 7cab2c65d3d7..c99d7cac2aa6 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/stat.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/stat.h
> @@ -127,7 +127,10 @@ struct statx {
> __u32 stx_dio_mem_align; /* Memory buffer alignment for direct I/O */
> __u32 stx_dio_offset_align; /* File offset alignment for direct I/O */
> /* 0xa0 */
> - __u64 __spare3[12]; /* Spare space for future expansion */
> + __u32 stx_atomic_write_unit_max;
> + __u32 stx_atomic_write_unit_min;
Maybe min first and then max? That seems a bit more natural, and a lot of the
code you've written handle them in that order.
> +#define STATX_ATTR_WRITE_ATOMIC 0x00400000 /* File supports atomic write operations */
How would this differ from stx_atomic_write_unit_min != 0?
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists