Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-196885-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 06:31:36 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
	brauner@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, chandanbabu@kernel.org,
	jack@suse.cz, willy@infradead.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
	chengzhihao1@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 5/8] xfs: refactor the truncating order
Message-ID: <ZlnRODP_b8bhXOEE@infradead.org>
References: <20240529095206.2568162-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>
 <20240529095206.2568162-6-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240529095206.2568162-6-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>

> +	write_back = newsize > ip->i_disk_size && oldsize != ip->i_disk_size;

Maybe need_writeback would be a better name for the variable?  Also no
need to initialize it to false at declaration time if it is
unconditionally set here.

> +		/*
> +		 * Updating i_size after writing back to make sure the zeroed
> +		 * blocks could been written out, and drop all the page cache
> +		 * range that beyond blocksize aligned new EOF block.
> +		 *
> +		 * We've already locked out new page faults, so now we can
> +		 * safely remove pages from the page cache knowing they won't
> +		 * get refaulted until we drop the XFS_MMAP_EXCL lock after the
> +		 * extent manipulations are complete.
> +		 */
> +		i_size_write(inode, newsize);
> +		truncate_pagecache(inode, roundup_64(newsize, blocksize));

Any reason this open codes truncate_setsize()?