[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240220082902.GC13785@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:29:02 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
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, dchinner@...hat.com,
jack@...e.cz, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com,
linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, nilay@...ux.ibm.com,
ritesh.list@...il.com,
Prasad Singamsetty <prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] block: Add atomic write support for statx
> +#define BDEV_STATX_SUPPORTED_MASK (STATX_DIOALIGN | STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC)
> + if (!(request_mask & BDEV_STATX_SUPPORTED_MASK))
> + return;
BDEV_STATX_SUPPORTED_MASK is misleading here. bdevs support a lot more
fields, these are just the ones needing special attention. I'd do away
with the extra define and just open code it.
> + /* If this is a block device inode, override the filesystem
> + * attributes with the block device specific parameters
> + * that need to be obtained from the bdev backing inode
> + */
This is not the normal kernel multi-line comment format.
> + if (S_ISBLK(d_backing_inode(path.dentry)->i_mode))
> + bdev_statx(path.dentry, stat, request_mask);
I know I touched this last, but does anyone remember why we have
various random fixups in vfs_statx and not in vfs_getattr_nosec, where
they we have more of them and also the inode at hand?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists