Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:03:54 -0700
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To:     Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chao Yu <chao.yu@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC NO MERGE] f2fs: extent cache: support unaligned extent
Message-ID: <YQgziuikMr0fvlT7@google.com>
References: <20210707015815.1978-1-chao@kernel.org>
 <YQRQ4kHvdRTBnb10@google.com>
 <51565c85-a475-bcb8-bbb2-e3125c5223a3@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51565c85-a475-bcb8-bbb2-e3125c5223a3@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 08/01, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2021/7/31 3:20, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/07, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > Currently, it only works in readonly format f2fs image.
> 
> There wouldn't be any race condition because unaligned extent only works
> for ro feature now?

Isn't your patch proposing on writable partition?

> 
> > Is there any race condition between the address in extent_cache and the one in
> > dnode? I feel that we could synchronize it by locking its dnode block.
> 
> Thanks,