Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:52:01 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>,
        Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@wdc.com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        linux-man@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: iomap write invalidation
Message-ID: <20200721155201.GL15516@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20200713074633.875946-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20200720215125.bfz7geaftocy4r5l@fiona>
 <20200721145313.GA9217@lst.de>
 <20200721150432.GH15516@casper.infradead.org>
 <20200721150615.GA10330@lst.de>
 <20200721151437.GI15516@casper.infradead.org>
 <20200721151616.GA11074@lst.de>
 <20200721153136.GJ15516@casper.infradead.org>
 <20200721154240.GB11652@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200721154240.GB11652@lst.de>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:42:40PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 04:31:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > Umm, no.  -ENOTBLK is internal - the file systems will retry using
> > > buffered I/O and the error shall never escape to userspace (or even the
> > > VFS for that matter).
> > 
> > Ah, I made the mistake of believing the comments that I could see in
> > your patch instead of reading the code.
> > 
> > Can I suggest deleting this comment:
> > 
> >         /*
> >          * No fallback to buffered IO on errors for XFS, direct IO will either
> >          * complete fully or fail.
> >          */
> > 
> > and rewording this one:
> > 
> >                 /*
> >                  * Allow a directio write to fall back to a buffered
> >                  * write *only* in the case that we're doing a reflink
> >                  * CoW.  In all other directio scenarios we do not
> >                  * allow an operation to fall back to buffered mode.
> >                  */
> > 
> > as part of your revised patchset?
> 
> That isn't actually true.  In current mainline we only fallback on
> reflink RMW cases, but with this series we also fall back for
> invalidation failures.

... that's why I'm suggesting that you delete the first one and rewrite
the second one.  Because they aren't true.