Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61520-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 17:36:44 +0530
From: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Cc: hch@lst.de, djwong@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org,
        dchinner@redhat.com, jack@suse.cz, chandan.babu@oracle.com,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        tytso@mit.edu, jbongio@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] block atomic writes for XFS
Message-ID: <ZcoJ1IqADvWdYgFa@li-bb2b2a4c-3307-11b2-a85c-8fa5c3a69313.ibm.com>
References: <20240124142645.9334-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
 <ZcXQ879zXGFOfDaL@li-bb2b2a4c-3307-11b2-a85c-8fa5c3a69313.ibm.com>
 <66e0b76e-c1aa-4e65-9372-07a1fccaeb6b@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <66e0b76e-c1aa-4e65-9372-07a1fccaeb6b@oracle.com>

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 09:22:20AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 09/02/2024 07:14, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 02:26:39PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > > This series expands atomic write support to filesystems, specifically
> > > XFS. Since XFS rtvol supports extent alignment already, support will
> > > initially be added there. When XFS forcealign feature is merged, then we
> > > can similarly support atomic writes for a non-rtvol filesystem.
> > 
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > Along with rtvol check, we can also have a simple check to see if the
> > FS blocksize itself is big enough to satisfy the atomic requirements.
> > For eg on machines with 64K page, we can have say 16k or 64k block sizes
> > which should be able to provide required allocation behavior for atomic
> > writes. In such cases we don't need rtvol.
> > 
> I suppose we could do, but I would rather just concentrate on rtvol support
> initially, and there we do report atomic write unit min = FS block size
> (even if rt extsize is unset).

Okay understood. 

Thanks,
ojaswin

> 
> In addition, I plan to initially just support atomic write unit min = FS
> block size (for both rtvol and !rtvol).
> 
> Thanks,
> John