[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240213065518.GA23539@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 07:55:18 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, hch@....de,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
jack@...e.cz, chandan.babu@...cle.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com,
ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: iomap: Atomic write support
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 11:29:57AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>
>> Also, what's the meaning of REQ_OP_READ | REQ_ATOMIC?
>
> REQ_ATOMIC will be ignored for REQ_OP_READ. I'm following the same policy
> as something like RWF_SYNC for a read.
We've been rather sloppy with these flags in the past, which isn't
a good thing. Let's add proper checking for new interfaces.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists