linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] 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: <fb6f286d-19b5-4f30-ac0d-799311980521@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 08:09:47 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org, cem@...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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] xfs: Update atomic write max size

On 12/03/2025 07:41, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 06:39:44PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> For RT inode, just limit to 1x block, even though larger can be supported
>> in future.
> 
> Why?

Adding RT support adds even more complexity upfront, and RT is 
uncommonly used.

In addition, it will be limited to using power-of-2 rtextsize, so a 
slightly restricted feature.

> 
>> +	if (XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip)) {
>> +		/* For now, set limit at 1x block */
> 
> Why?  It' clearly obvious that you do that from the code, but comments
> are supposed to explain why something non-obvious is done.

ok

> 
>> +		*unit_max = ip->i_mount->m_sb.sb_blocksize;
>> +	} else {
>> +		*unit_max =  min_t(unsigned int,
> 
> double whitespace before the min.

will fix

> 
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
>> @@ -665,6 +665,32 @@ xfs_agbtree_compute_maxlevels(
>>   	levels = max(levels, mp->m_rmap_maxlevels);
>>   	mp->m_agbtree_maxlevels = max(levels, mp->m_refc_maxlevels);
>>   }
>> +static inline void
> 
> Missing empty line after the previous function.

Will fix.

Thanks,
John