From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 1A2445789D; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 10:57:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738061869; cv=none; b=H+ZtSKHYW/wXARzr6j2ukUqnat7kKDd5SlL0zI33KMc/7wydY4QvoaEsdnn0lPRkHPdHoGzIkBni3ijNtObdlGRtwDb1ve4MZrI/VRBilmnT2S49nX0hU1yKNh8rFKO6fnW1Bu97m75mEfwIE61vo4FnhqJbJNzKSuS7z+yMKwY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738061869; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OHze50Q3DWl+LePefiX+gCqYSbz7UcQdSf7eE0RkVoQ=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Message-Id:Date: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Cmn5AdHr6k4i3hucr0xeAVQed+pCF14ZNJVSj9nZUbbRE7g6LVpF+83ukwtV2XkjnlXH7WRlTpT4NOgy6oqEnYMzglgtNscURPP5O8wxpeggvUYgaIfdBwplyqMv7yykvfijTMJRS8byNOoYHE/9DmUt+dwZzubnRnz77N/zxEY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=HL5o4ctX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="HL5o4ctX" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C22C5C4CED3; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 10:57:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1738061868; bh=OHze50Q3DWl+LePefiX+gCqYSbz7UcQdSf7eE0RkVoQ=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Date:From; b=HL5o4ctXEG+zPVdIgNVn4auQHb4xWmcV0Ecj4y9nCGN/8nFD47bTNSc3TO+TrdfoQ 8ExXVEl+v9wq4Sqx6s7NcvK5hzDrqbhiUaH+v79O8HWOLzB7qKUBfSdy1Ef1YdIhdS t8LmFHavihg3HF8vvJYwigQoZQu56Do+bplWS25e0bxx68KJRxR8F3W92pKB5G7kHz n+Fr8+y4hsPvl445cKIE8HgQug+J0P5IuK2V4EZFLbX71R4Z+0W9NA2ZwaqWnjZeIb kyFNHD3BJOUUqI0trsozITJlfhs7kI9L5ygAU4Yq644XdRV12QBo1+WauzWPNduDYG UXVNbEtoMsc+Q== From: Carlos Maiolino To: dchinner@redhat.com, djwong@kernel.org, Jinliang Zheng Cc: chandanbabu@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jinliang Zheng , Dave Chinner In-Reply-To: <20250115123525.134269-1-alexjlzheng@tencent.com> References: <20250115123525.134269-1-alexjlzheng@tencent.com> Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3] xfs: fix the entry condition of exact EOF block allocation optimization Message-Id: <173806186643.500545.9968635452635594761.b4-ty@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:57:46 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: b4 0.14.2 On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 20:35:25 +0800, Jinliang Zheng wrote: > When we call create(), lseek() and write() sequentially, offset != 0 > cannot be used as a judgment condition for whether the file already > has extents. > > Furthermore, when xfs_bmap_adjacent() has not given a better blkno, > it is not necessary to use exact EOF block allocation. > > [...] Applied to for-next, thanks! [1/1] xfs: fix the entry condition of exact EOF block allocation optimization commit: 915175b49f65d9edeb81659e82cbb27b621dbc17 Best regards, -- Carlos Maiolino