[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <efc33949-9950-d51a-a7d0-d8214a092a2c@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 11:22:46 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/21] fs: xfs: Don't use low-space allocator for
alignment > 1
On 03/10/2023 04:00, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> How does this happen?
>>
>> The earlier failing aligned allocations will clear alignment before
>> we get here....
> I was thinking the predicate should be xfs_inode_force_align(ip) to save
> me/us from thinking about all the other weird ways args->alignment could
> end up 1.
>
> /* forced-alignment means we don't use low mode */
> if (xfs_inode_force_align(ip))
My idea was that if we add another feature which requires
args->alignment > 1 be honoured, then we would need to change this code
to cover both features, so better just check args->alignment > 1.
> return -ENOSPC;
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists