| Message ID | 20250108085549.1296733-6-hch@lst.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/5] fs: reformat the statx definition | expand |
On 08/01/2025 08:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > For I/O to reflinked blocks we always need to write an entire new file > system block, and the code enforces the file system block alignment for > the entire file if it has any reflinked blocks. Mirror the larger > value reported in the statx in the dio_offset_align in the xfs-specific > XFS_IOC_DIOINFO ioctl for the same reason. > > Don't bother adding a new field for the read alignment to this legacy > ioctl as all new users should use statx instead. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 11 ++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > index 0789c18aaa18..20f3cf5391c6 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > @@ -1204,7 +1204,16 @@ xfs_file_ioctl( > struct xfs_buftarg *target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip); > struct dioattr da; > > - da.d_mem = da.d_miniosz = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; > + da.d_mem = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; > + > + /* > + * See xfs_report_dioalign() why report a potential larger than > + * sector sizevalue here for COW inodes. nit: sizevalue > + */ > + if (xfs_is_cow_inode(ip)) > + da.d_miniosz = xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(ip); > + else > + da.d_miniosz = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; > da.d_maxiosz = INT_MAX & ~(da.d_miniosz - 1); > > if (copy_to_user(arg, &da, sizeof(da)))
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 10:11:27AM +0000, John Garry wrote: > On 08/01/2025 08:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > For I/O to reflinked blocks we always need to write an entire new file > > system block, and the code enforces the file system block alignment for > > the entire file if it has any reflinked blocks. Mirror the larger > > value reported in the statx in the dio_offset_align in the xfs-specific > > XFS_IOC_DIOINFO ioctl for the same reason. > > > > Don't bother adding a new field for the read alignment to this legacy > > ioctl as all new users should use statx instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > --- > > fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 11 ++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > > index 0789c18aaa18..20f3cf5391c6 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > > @@ -1204,7 +1204,16 @@ xfs_file_ioctl( > > struct xfs_buftarg *target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip); > > struct dioattr da; > > - da.d_mem = da.d_miniosz = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; > > + da.d_mem = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; > > + > > + /* > > + * See xfs_report_dioalign() why report a potential larger than > > + * sector sizevalue here for COW inodes. > > nit: sizevalue The sentence reads oddly to me; how about: "See xfs_report_dioalign() for an explanation about why we report a value larger than the sector size for COW inodes."? The code change looks ok though. Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org> --D > > + */ > > + if (xfs_is_cow_inode(ip)) > > + da.d_miniosz = xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(ip); > > + else > > + da.d_miniosz = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; > > da.d_maxiosz = INT_MAX & ~(da.d_miniosz - 1); > > if (copy_to_user(arg, &da, sizeof(da))) > >
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c index 0789c18aaa18..20f3cf5391c6 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c @@ -1204,7 +1204,16 @@ xfs_file_ioctl( struct xfs_buftarg *target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip); struct dioattr da; - da.d_mem = da.d_miniosz = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; + da.d_mem = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; + + /* + * See xfs_report_dioalign() why report a potential larger than + * sector sizevalue here for COW inodes. + */ + if (xfs_is_cow_inode(ip)) + da.d_miniosz = xfs_inode_alloc_unitsize(ip); + else + da.d_miniosz = target->bt_logical_sectorsize; da.d_maxiosz = INT_MAX & ~(da.d_miniosz - 1); if (copy_to_user(arg, &da, sizeof(da)))
For I/O to reflinked blocks we always need to write an entire new file system block, and the code enforces the file system block alignment for the entire file if it has any reflinked blocks. Mirror the larger value reported in the statx in the dio_offset_align in the xfs-specific XFS_IOC_DIOINFO ioctl for the same reason. Don't bother adding a new field for the read alignment to this legacy ioctl as all new users should use statx instead. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> --- fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 11 ++++++++++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)