linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] xfs: Update atomic write max size

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f7857671-d566-4393-adf0-8e983f6607a3@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 12:59:12 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] xfs: Update atomic write max size

On 10/03/2025 12:38, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:20:23AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> On 10/03/2025 11:11, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:54:23AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/2025 10:06, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
>>>>>> index fbed172d6770..bc96b8214173 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
>>>>>> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ typedef struct xfs_mount {
>>>>>>     	bool			m_fail_unmount;
>>>>>>     	bool			m_finobt_nores; /* no per-AG finobt resv. */
>>>>>>     	bool			m_update_sb;	/* sb needs update in mount */
>>>>>> +	xfs_extlen_t		awu_max;	/* data device max atomic write */
>>>>> Could you please rename this to something else? All fields within xfs_mount
>>>>> follows the same pattern m_<name>. Perhaps m_awu_max?
>>>> Fine, but I think I then need to deal with spilling multiple lines to
>>>> accommodate a proper comment.
>>>>
>>>>> I was going to send a patch replacing it once I had this merged, but giving
>>>>> Dave's new comments, and the conflicts with zoned devices, you'll need to send a
>>>>> V5, so, please include this change if nobody else has any objections on keeping
>>>>> the xfs_mount naming convention.
>>>> What branch do you want me to send this against?
>>> I just pushed everything to for-next, so you can just rebase it against for-next
>>>
>>> Notice this includes the iomap patches you sent in this series which Christian
>>> picked up. So if you need to re-work something on the iomap patches, you'll
>>> probably need to take this into account.
>>
>> Your branch includes the iomap changes, so hard to deal with.
> 
>> For the iomap change, Dave was suggesting a name change only, so not a
>> major issue.
> 
> If you don't plan to change anything related to the iomap (depending on the path
> the discussion on path 5/12 takes), I believe all you need to do is remove the
> iomap patches from your branch, sending only the xfs patches.

Right

> 
>> So if we really want to go with a name change, then I could add a patch
>> to change the name only and include in the v5.
>>
>> Review comments are always welcome, but I wish that they did not come so
>> late...
> 
> That's why I didn't bother asking you to change xfs_mount until now, I'd do it
> myself if you weren't going to send a V5.
> But Dave's comments are more than a mere naming convention, but logic
> adjusting due to operator precedence.
> 

ok, working on that now.

Cheers,
John