[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a015015-ae7f-4eb5-ad00-420db5961d96@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 16:22:05 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, song@...nel.org, yukuai3@...wei.com, kbusch@...nel.org,
sagi@...mberg.me, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] block: Make bdev_can_atomic_write() robust
against mis-aligned bdev size
On 12/09/2024 16:07, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> We should do be able to, but with this patch we cannot. However, a
>> misaligned partition would be very much unexpected.
> Yes, misaligned partitions is very unexpected, but with large and
> potentially unlimited atomic boundaries I would not expect the size
> to always be aligned. But then again at least in NVMe atomic writes
> don't need to match the max size anyway, so I'm not entirely sure
> what the problem actually is.
Actually it's not an alignment issue, but a size issue.
Consider a 3.5MB partition and atomic write max is 1MB. If we tried to
atomic write 1MB at offset 3MB, then it would be truncated to a 0.5MB write.
So maybe it is an application bug.
>
>> I could also just reject any truncation on the atomic write in fops. Maybe
>> that is better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists