Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Sat, 28 May 2022 20:39:06 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
To:     Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
        adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jack@suse.cz, lczerner@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
        yebin10@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ext4: support flex_bg in ext4_mb_normalize_request
Message-ID: <20220528150906.om746qfxoxu7svzx@riteshh-domain>
References: <20220528110017.354175-1-libaokun1@huawei.com>
 <20220528110017.354175-4-libaokun1@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220528110017.354175-4-libaokun1@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 22/05/28 07:00PM, Baokun Li wrote:
> In ext4_mb_normalize_request, the size of the allocation request is
> limited to no more than EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP. Ritesh mentions that this
> does not take into account the case of flex_bg groups. So we should add
> support for flex_bg to make the physical blocks of large files contiguous.

My only concern here was that what if we are at the flex group end boundary and
decide to take the size as of flex group size. How are we detecting that case.

But, I haven't yet looked at this patch of yours (as I am on travel for next few days),
but if this requires further discussion, we can work on this seperately and let
the other two patches go in as those are part of the bug fixes which you
identified (just my thoughts).

-ritesh