[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231219151759.GA4468@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:17:59 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, sagi@...mberg.me,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
jack@...e.cz, 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-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
ming.lei@...hat.com, jaswin@...ux.ibm.com, bvanassche@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] block atomic writes
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 12:41:37PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> How about something based on fcntl, like below? We will prob also require
> some per-FS flag for enabling atomic writes without HW support. That flag
> might be also useful for XFS for differentiating forcealign for atomic
> writes with just forcealign.
I would have just exposed it through a user visible flag instead of
adding yet another ioctl/fcntl opcode and yet another method.
And yes, for anything that doesn't always support atomic writes it would
need to be persisted.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists