Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: propagate resizable_tail_secno mount option

[Wenjie Qi]

Hi Chao,

Yes. Please disregard this standalone patch.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 10:05 AM Chao Yu <chao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 8/25/26 23:48, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 1:42 AM Wenjie Qi <qwjhust@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mount parsing stores resizable_tail_secno in F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx),
> >> but it does not mark the option in ctx->spec_mask. As a
> >> result, f2fs_apply_options() never copies the value into
> >> F2FS_OPTION(sbi), so adjust_pinned_area_boundary() ignores
> >> the requested tail reservation.
> >>
> >> Set the missing spec_mask bit and propagate the parsed value
> >> through f2fs_apply_options().
> >>
> >> Fixes: d8745ba260ab ("f2fs: support resizable tail section and unify pinned allocation")
> >> Signed-off-by: Wenjie Qi <qiwenjie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> QEMU validation summary:
> >> - plain mount reported `pinned_area_max_secno=502`
> >> - `-o resizable_tail_secno=1` reported `pinned_area_max_secno=501`
> >> - bounded fill stayed within the reduced boundary through the first
> >>   `FALLOC_RET=-1 ERRNO=28`
> >>
> >>  fs/f2fs/super.c | 5 +++++
> >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> index c1e315282ec..6238dfe6f4e 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> @@ -406,6 +406,7 @@ static match_table_t f2fs_checkpoint_tokens = {
> >>  #define F2FS_SPEC_errors                       (1 << 23)
> >>  #define F2FS_SPEC_lookup_mode                  (1 << 24)
> >>  #define F2FS_SPEC_reserve_node                 (1 << 25)
> >> +#define F2FS_SPEC_resizable_tail_secno         BIT(26)
> >>
> >>  struct f2fs_fs_context {
> >>         struct f2fs_mount_info info;
> >> @@ -1250,6 +1251,7 @@ static int f2fs_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
> >>                 break;
> >>         case Opt_resizable_tail_secno:
> >>                 F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx).resizable_tail_secno = result.uint_32;
> >> +               ctx->spec_mask |= F2FS_SPEC_resizable_tail_secno;
> >>                 break;
> >>         }
> >>         return 0;
> >> @@ -1779,6 +1781,9 @@ static void f2fs_apply_options(struct fs_context *fc, struct super_block *sb)
> >>                 F2FS_OPTION(sbi).errors = F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx).errors;
> >>         if (ctx->spec_mask & F2FS_SPEC_lookup_mode)
> >>                 F2FS_OPTION(sbi).lookup_mode = F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx).lookup_mode;
> >> +       if (ctx->spec_mask & F2FS_SPEC_resizable_tail_secno)
> >> +               F2FS_OPTION(sbi).resizable_tail_secno =
> >> +                               F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx).resizable_tail_secno;
> >
> > Hi Wenjie,
> >
> > The original patch is still under review. If you found an issue or
> > have feedback, please reply with a review comment on the original
> > patch thread instead.
> >
> > Also, if this patch was auto-generated by AI, please adjust your
> > system accordingly.
>
> Hi Wenjie,
>
> I agree w/ Daeho, please adjust policy to give comment on pending patch
> rather than just patching w/ a new one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >>
> >>         f2fs_apply_compression(fc, sb);
> >>         f2fs_apply_test_dummy_encryption(fc, sb);
> >>
> >> base-commit: d8745ba260abbcaf75fd458881381019ab3c5c07
> >> --
> >> 2.43.0
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> >> Linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>