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

[Carlos Maiolino]

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.

> 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.

Carlos

> 
> Thanks,
> John