Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145924-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, 15 Apr 2024 22:18:30 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
	Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>,
	Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com>,
	Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gonz=E1lez?= <javier.gonz@samsung.com>,
	axboe@kernel.dk, kbusch@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me,
	jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, djwong@kernel.org,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com,
	jack@suse.cz, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, jbongio@google.com,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com,
	linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	io-uring@vger.kernel.org, nilay@linux.ibm.com,
	ritesh.list@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] block atomic writes
Message-ID: <Zh2ZptLxnwa_jtSk@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240326133813.3224593-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
 <ZgOXb_oZjsUU12YL@casper.infradead.org>
 <c4c0dad5-41a4-44b4-8f40-2a250571180b@oracle.com>
 <Zg7Z4aJtn3SxY5w1@casper.infradead.org>
 <f3c1d321-0dfc-466f-9f6a-fe2f0513d944@oracle.com>
 <ZhQud1NbO4aMt0MH@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <ZhYQANQATz82ytl1@casper.infradead.org>
 <ZhxBiLSHuW35aoLB@bombadil.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZhxBiLSHuW35aoLB@bombadil.infradead.org>

On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 01:50:16PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 05:05:20AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Have you tried just using the buffer_head code?  I think you heard bad
> > advice at last LSFMM.  Since then I've landed a bunch of patches which
> > remove PAGE_SIZE assumptions throughout the buffer_head code, and while
> > I haven't tried it, it might work.  And it might be easier to make work
> > than adding more BH hacks to the iomap code.
> 
> I have considered it but the issue is that *may work* isn't good enough and
> without a test plan for buffer-heads on a real filesystem this may never
> suffice. Addressing a buffere-head iomap compat for the block device cache
> is less error prone here for now.

Is it really your position that testing the code I already wrote is
harder than writing and testing some entirely new code?  Surely the
tests are the same for both.

Besides, we aren't talking about a filesystem on top of the bdev here.
We're talking about accessing the bdev's page cache directly.