From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A02C61D85 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:03:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233662AbjKURDf (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:03:35 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35592 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230399AbjKURDe (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2023 12:03:34 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C0EF12C; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 09:03:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 9D72267373; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:03:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:03:27 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Johannes Thumshirn Cc: Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Naohiro Aota Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] btrfs: zoned: don't clear dirty flag of extent buffer Message-ID: <20231121170327.GB19695@lst.de> References: <20231121-josef-generic-163-v1-0-049e37185841@wdc.com> <20231121-josef-generic-163-v1-2-049e37185841@wdc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231121-josef-generic-163-v1-2-049e37185841@wdc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > if (test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_CANCELLED, &eb->bflags)) { > - WARN_ON_ONCE(found_start != 0); > + memzero_extent_buffer(eb, 0, eb->len); > return BLK_STS_OK; > + if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) { > + set_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_CANCELLED, &eb->bflags); > + return; > + } Maybe these two places would benefit from comments on why the buffer is just marked as cancelled and zeroed out (that is to keep the write order because block numbers are already assigned)? Otherwise this looks great: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig