From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 11/34] iomap: move IOMAP_F_BOUNDARY to gfs2 To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_Gr=c3=bcnbacher?= References: <20180523144357.18985-1-hch@lst.de> <20180523144357.18985-12-hch@lst.de> <20180530055033.GZ30110@magnolia> <20180530095911.GB31068@lst.de> From: Steven Whitehouse Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 11:02:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180530095911.GB31068@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On 30/05/18 10:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:30:32AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: >> I may have missed the context here, but I thought that the boundary wa= s a >> generic thing meaning "there will have to be a metadata read before mo= re >> blocks can be mapped" so I'm not sure why that would now be GFS2 speci= fic? > It was always a hack. But with iomap it doesn't make any sensee to sta= rt > with, all metadata I/O happens in iomap_begin, so there is no point in > marking an iomap with flags like this for the actual iomap interface. In that case,=C2=A0 maybe it would be simpler to drop it for GFS2. Unless= we=20 are getting a lot of benefit from it, then we should probably just=20 follow the generic pattern here. Eventually we'll move everything to=20 iomap, so that the bh mapping interface will be gone. That implies that=20 we might be able to drop it now, to avoid this complication during the=20 conversion. Andreas, do you see any issues with that? Steve. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Whitehouse Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 11:02:08 +0100 Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 11/34] iomap: move IOMAP_F_BOUNDARY to gfs2 In-Reply-To: <20180530095911.GB31068@lst.de> References: <20180523144357.18985-1-hch@lst.de> <20180523144357.18985-12-hch@lst.de> <20180530055033.GZ30110@magnolia> <20180530095911.GB31068@lst.de> Message-ID: List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On 30/05/18 10:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:30:32AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: >> I may have missed the context here, but I thought that the boundary was a >> generic thing meaning "there will have to be a metadata read before more >> blocks can be mapped" so I'm not sure why that would now be GFS2 specific? > It was always a hack. But with iomap it doesn't make any sensee to start > with, all metadata I/O happens in iomap_begin, so there is no point in > marking an iomap with flags like this for the actual iomap interface. In that case,? maybe it would be simpler to drop it for GFS2. Unless we are getting a lot of benefit from it, then we should probably just follow the generic pattern here. Eventually we'll move everything to iomap, so that the bh mapping interface will be gone. That implies that we might be able to drop it now, to avoid this complication during the conversion. Andreas, do you see any issues with that? Steve.