Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 23:24:36 +1000
From:   Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     tytso@mit.edu, jack@suse.cz, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        david@fromorbit.com, darrick.wong@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] ext4: introduce direct IO write path using iomap
 infrastructure
Message-ID: <20190920132436.GA2863@bobrowski>
References: <cover.1568282664.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <db33705f9ba35ccbe20fc19b8ecbbf2078beff08.1568282664.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <20190916121248.GD4005@infradead.org>
 <20190916223741.GA5936@bobrowski>
 <20190917090613.GC29487@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190917090613.GC29487@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 02:06:13AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:37:41AM +1000, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > > Independent of the error return issue you probably want to split
> > > modifying ext4_write_checks into a separate preparation patch.
> > 
> > Providing that there's no objections to introducing a possible performance
> > change with this separate preparation patch (overhead of calling
> > file_remove_privs/file_update_time twice), then I have no issues in doing so.
> 
> Well, we should avoid calling it twice.  But what caught my eye is that
> the buffered I/O path also called this function, so we are changing it as
> well here.  If that actually is safe (I didn't review these bits carefully
> and don't know ext4 that well) the overall refactoring of the write
> flow might belong into a separate prep patch (that is not relying
> on ->direct_IO, the checks changes, etc).

Yeah, no. Revisiting this again now and trying to implement the
ext4_write_checks() modifications as a pre-patch is a nightmare so to
speak. This is purely due to the way that ext4_file_write_iter() is currently
written and how both the current buffered I/O and direct I/O paths traverse
through and make use of it.

If anything, the changes applied to ext4_write_checks() should be a separate
patch that comes *after* the refactoring of the buffered and direct I/O write
flow. However, even then, there'd be code that we essentially introduce in the
write flow changes and then subsequently removed after the fact. Providing
that's OK, then sure, I can put this within a separate patch.

--<M>--