Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221121071704.GC23882@lst.de>
References: <20221121071704.GC23882@lst.de> <166876785552.222254.4403222906022558715.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] afs: Stop implementing ->writepage()
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <150666.1669019337.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 08:28:57 +0000
Message-ID: <150667.1669019337@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> >  (1) afs_write_back_from_locked_folio() could be called directly rathe=
r
> >      than calling filemap_fdatawrite_wbc(), but that would avoid the
> >      control group stuff that wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode() and co. se=
em to
> >      do.  Do I actually need to do this?
> =

> That would be much preferred over the for_write_begin hack, given that
> write_begin really isn't a well defined method but a hacky hook for
> legacy write implementations.

So I don't need to worry about the control group stuff?  I'll still need s=
ome
way to flush a conflicting write whatever mechanism is being used to write=
 to
the page cache.

David