On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 07:44:46AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > So this can't be merged into xfs_setsize_buftarg as suggeted last round > > instead of needing yet another per-device call into the buftarg code? > > Oh, heh, I forgot that xfs_setsize_buftarg is called a second time by > xfs_setup_devices at the end of fill_super. That's actually the real call. The first is just a dummy to have bt_meta_sectorsize/bt_meta_sectormask initialized because if we didn't do that some assert in the block layer triggered. We should probably remove that call and open code the two assignments.. > I don't like the idea of merging the hw atomic write detection into > xfs_setsize_buftarg itself because (a) it gets called for the data > device before we've read the fs blocksize so the validation is > meaningless and (b) that makes xfs_setsize_buftarg's purpose less > cohesive. As explained last round this came up I'd of course rename it if we did that. But I can do that later.
