Re: [PATCH v10 5/8] fs: iomap: Atomic write support

[IBM]

John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 20/10/2024 09:21, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
>>>   -293,7 +295,8 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter,
>>>   	const struct iomap *iomap = &iter->iomap;
>>>   	struct inode *inode = iter->inode;
>>>   	unsigned int fs_block_size = i_blocksize(inode), pad;
>>> -	loff_t length = iomap_length(iter);
>>> +	const loff_t length = iomap_length(iter);
>>> +	bool atomic = iter->flags & IOMAP_ATOMIC;
>>>   	loff_t pos = iter->pos;
>>>   	blk_opf_t bio_opf;
>>>   	struct bio *bio;
>>> @@ -303,6 +306,9 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter,
>>>   	size_t copied = 0;
>>>   	size_t orig_count;
>>>   
>>> +	if (atomic && length != fs_block_size)
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> We anyway mandate iov_iter_count() write should be same as sb_blocksize
>> in xfs_file_write_iter() for atomic writes.
>> This comparison here is not required. I believe we do plan to lift this
>> restriction maybe when we are going to add forcealign support right?
>
> Yes, we would lift this restriction if and when forcealign is added. Or 
> when bigalloc is leveraged for ext4 atomic writes.
>
> But I think that today it is proper to add this check, as we are saying 
> that iomap DIO path does not support anything else than fs_block_size.
>
> For forcealign, we were introducing support for atomic writes spanning 
> mixed unwritten and written extents in [0]. We don't have that support 
> here, so it is prudent to say that we just support fs_block_size.
>
> [0] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240607143919.2622319-4-john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx/
>

Sure.

>> 
>> And similarly this needs to be lifted when ext4 adds support for atomic
>> write even with bigalloc. I hope we can do so when we add such support, right?
>
> Right
>

Thanks for confirming that.
The patch looks good to me. Please feel free to add - 

Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx>