From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 643EE22A80D for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 02:05:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787709947; cv=none; b=HrctX/IIVbplSX2LJIkPXcaqzGv1NKb06ueJxxKcNp8olxuiAshWOy5jrAUPGqt1HnYLpGJ7XNRn+EMJ8y7EecUI3Xg313ZZOGdJfJNYOVe46JjAiv7kzbA2mpa6pXoK2CMMfrMba2BfovBPB/4VlJERMw0O5IfeyDDpNDhj9vY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787709947; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gfKUzUl4fFIx3Ed6pG4UXdVBXiPEyOQjatdwGC7qbRo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Cc:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=czjOPvTCRk9JggwADU+cGa8o+HSwNaGPExu4JMN5VKgUWD/gtwoZ0WfR3ohf1Q9M7juKJcK/TkN+qBMhKQVYDep65kAPKoIMaN6TtEcaiiT1dhmIlJoOyBTnnc0KkxlJfkmD2MO5QJLl9xIHwasOtybKnPNiLZ+KoJVYjzrAldc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=gMJ/DCzA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="gMJ/DCzA" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97D411F000E9; Wed, 26 Aug 2026 02:05:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1787709946; bh=0J2waooAcSrRdur5SJvzaqNMAL4mN58Jutv5/mxzKrQ=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=gMJ/DCzAAwLNLbZPDsTVR3INdJHGzQFKHkz1IvJO4awCBPF45KE2Emoh+BBqjihsK Ez+UO3OOgc9MluNCTraLRynUc6YsDJltdSy+x93BxQjuXMSVzTKxdL3EAhNdAOfZ1Y Q9Su/msxntPvt1sTb8LNeH1zjJ5k8lv9gAO/qHPWPrBgsTNJf+VAJIHwguXRqwNLzV A7q5J3c8GLrZf+2wIxhnefRERsVcagtzhnJnrPLqlDVsgMVh248jGL5O6huuBT4zHO rRkOSu+4Tn4mO39D1Pzus9bxobgITliKBw8H/OT658iHGBMNmLSjb8q2OZYyJqLO7Z rGzs73dVttiWA== Message-ID: <0702a9a1-6f69-4c7e-8ab7-809d04526ce4@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 10:05:43 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cc: chao@kernel.org, jaegeuk@kernel.org, daehojeong@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, qiwenjie@xiaomi.com Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: propagate resizable_tail_secno mount option To: Daeho Jeong , Wenjie Qi References: <20260825083738.526423-1-qiwenjie@xiaomi.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Chao Yu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 8/25/26 23:48, Daeho Jeong wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 1:42 AM Wenjie Qi wrote: >> >> Mount parsing stores resizable_tail_secno in F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx), >> but it does not mark the option in ctx->spec_mask. As a >> result, f2fs_apply_options() never copies the value into >> F2FS_OPTION(sbi), so adjust_pinned_area_boundary() ignores >> the requested tail reservation. >> >> Set the missing spec_mask bit and propagate the parsed value >> through f2fs_apply_options(). >> >> Fixes: d8745ba260ab ("f2fs: support resizable tail section and unify pinned allocation") >> Signed-off-by: Wenjie Qi >> --- >> QEMU validation summary: >> - plain mount reported `pinned_area_max_secno=502` >> - `-o resizable_tail_secno=1` reported `pinned_area_max_secno=501` >> - bounded fill stayed within the reduced boundary through the first >> `FALLOC_RET=-1 ERRNO=28` >> >> fs/f2fs/super.c | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c >> index c1e315282ec..6238dfe6f4e 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c >> @@ -406,6 +406,7 @@ static match_table_t f2fs_checkpoint_tokens = { >> #define F2FS_SPEC_errors (1 << 23) >> #define F2FS_SPEC_lookup_mode (1 << 24) >> #define F2FS_SPEC_reserve_node (1 << 25) >> +#define F2FS_SPEC_resizable_tail_secno BIT(26) >> >> struct f2fs_fs_context { >> struct f2fs_mount_info info; >> @@ -1250,6 +1251,7 @@ static int f2fs_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param) >> break; >> case Opt_resizable_tail_secno: >> F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx).resizable_tail_secno = result.uint_32; >> + ctx->spec_mask |= F2FS_SPEC_resizable_tail_secno; >> break; >> } >> return 0; >> @@ -1779,6 +1781,9 @@ static void f2fs_apply_options(struct fs_context *fc, struct super_block *sb) >> F2FS_OPTION(sbi).errors = F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx).errors; >> if (ctx->spec_mask & F2FS_SPEC_lookup_mode) >> F2FS_OPTION(sbi).lookup_mode = F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx).lookup_mode; >> + if (ctx->spec_mask & F2FS_SPEC_resizable_tail_secno) >> + F2FS_OPTION(sbi).resizable_tail_secno = >> + F2FS_CTX_INFO(ctx).resizable_tail_secno; > > Hi Wenjie, > > The original patch is still under review. If you found an issue or > have feedback, please reply with a review comment on the original > patch thread instead. > > Also, if this patch was auto-generated by AI, please adjust your > system accordingly. Hi Wenjie, I agree w/ Daeho, please adjust policy to give comment on pending patch rather than just patching w/ a new one. Thanks, > > Thanks, > >> >> f2fs_apply_compression(fc, sb); >> f2fs_apply_test_dummy_encryption(fc, sb); >> >> base-commit: d8745ba260abbcaf75fd458881381019ab3c5c07 >> -- >> 2.43.0 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list >> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel