From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C88FB25601; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713215927; cv=none; b=ICTQH6RfwE2lrHU1YC78CNwH2tyXc6TcI5yoAZJ4al6LTbWtVc+c+phf2lpWiZMqK8H2EDHsdamrK8Hao3GDXPl8UKKPjFX3dsj4ke6z+gYlxN6hMoemVBK7W7n8Fo4WKd5Gov/ldS6CKXN0CAUDFVroLoAar/k/wfD2I+twvjI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713215927; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EIMA/Lom4s4J3a8zeR2nuXbkOuAimmCY/e6T8tXxKbQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QAQZfdA0ESSUJFjI7K/EXmRtYcSbObQnArbvU+QX8aZ14ZxoE2f+/vX5boEtGipBI2AfrurQfNggeUsV6Rp+maAQ+OiSnJJXyDvN0VUYRTf98YUcRl4UNKrgSChZ/lVjzQ+xq/hv5Jcdp/7seK/kGTHtIq4cdsfEME5gp+lsSnM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=k1gFawta; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="k1gFawta" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=oq3OSv09Zcq3l/SCWQSioSa37PYcwwKSz6uiDlE9w/E=; b=k1gFawtalSNyx93OW2ft4AbbZm mL+127agePKR7DWE1EgzM8K2Sdu0btd1XQeD8Wzl2tmTNdgWmn92sRrCehFh8u/+qHAagyvQyrV+I wglcZ0HQmPiryp3ay1AfYi9TzgEYQTdT7rPBLPlWeJzkacLKZXrdbwV9HsWzpaSjGI3Si8Mpfr2S0 0hiTTpWQOGyNpghwLESRQBYRaWfsk2cg6KJWgLE1zDszdu8yt8sfPIvBeNWyhWxqIe1CYWPFC33pc 4OQTnxL2Sln3ZByHLOn89dz27uUzxYSHVKBEuo/ChmtRraFlSsjkqf650IGawzGSeX5oHG74Pa4Vl djp37vKQ==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rwTig-0000000GWYM-3AgF; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:18:30 +0000 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:18:30 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: John Garry , Pankaj Raghav , Daniel Gomez , Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gonz=E1lez?= , axboe@kernel.dk, kbusch@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me, jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, djwong@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com, jack@suse.cz, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, jbongio@google.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, nilay@linux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] block atomic writes Message-ID: References: <20240326133813.3224593-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 01:50:16PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 05:05:20AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Have you tried just using the buffer_head code? I think you heard bad > > advice at last LSFMM. Since then I've landed a bunch of patches which > > remove PAGE_SIZE assumptions throughout the buffer_head code, and while > > I haven't tried it, it might work. And it might be easier to make work > > than adding more BH hacks to the iomap code. > > I have considered it but the issue is that *may work* isn't good enough and > without a test plan for buffer-heads on a real filesystem this may never > suffice. Addressing a buffere-head iomap compat for the block device cache > is less error prone here for now. Is it really your position that testing the code I already wrote is harder than writing and testing some entirely new code? Surely the tests are the same for both. Besides, we aren't talking about a filesystem on top of the bdev here. We're talking about accessing the bdev's page cache directly.