On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:22:16AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 02:59:06PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > 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. > > <nod> Would you be willing to review this patch as it is now and either > you or me can just tack a new cleanup patch on the end? I tried writing > a patch to clean this up, but ran into questions: > > At first I thought that the xfs_setsize_buftarg call in > xfs_alloc_buftarg could be replaced by open-coding the bt_meta_sector* > assignment, checking that bdev_validate_blocksize is ok, and dropping > the sync_blockdev. > > Once we get to xfs_setup_devices, we can call xfs_setsize_buftarg on the > three buftargs, and xfs_setsize_buftarg will configure the atomic writes > geometry. > > But then as I was reading the patch, it occurred to me that at least for > the data device, we actually /do/ want that sync_blockdev call so that > any dirty pagecache for the superblock actually get written to disk. > Maybe that can go at the end of xfs_open_devices? But would it be > preferable to sync all the devices prior to trying to read the primary > sb? I don't think there's a need, but maybe someone else has a > different viewpoint? Eh, since John posted a V10 I'll just tack my new patches on the end of that so everyone can look at them. --D
