From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailout2.samsung.com (mailout2.samsung.com [203.254.224.25]) (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 4466D45C700 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 07:23:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=203.254.224.25 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792048999; cv=none; b=Mbsjqru+asa9lH0wl61sBOv94G2yUa6FdjFLF609uqUM04NOJW/Rgx7fTEaRTLnAEfB91r9+PAboPsjoxn4JnNm43WYHZaiQHtK8zQfRMZOmjY8V9qaLou4uXKkxW1700CgMaaqpA1Tw1rO21YuC3ljz9hmIgUFsc1Y9e6IPT1A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792048999; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PtXIDX13fP+iqj3+gIFVKLJBnzkOyRNgQGSwKBXgoZY=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:To:CC:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date: Content-Type:References; b=CaLT5HYrsTKENtDzlr3bWHf5PT6wHpYgzKis4P8xp0Cu6NYQvL9CrkzFtzCND0ZnBl0c+LVnPGCe31TO7aTIOaVBKoz/5khGmh8qnMLb8JfbYdY11bI3XSBRgmAah3HIoeE/BhpcfPqEECrO3SlmABDSLQxYn0NQMot/+C/lADk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=samsung.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=samsung.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=samsung.com header.i=@samsung.com header.b=tG9SLedw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=203.254.224.25 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=samsung.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=samsung.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=samsung.com header.i=@samsung.com header.b="tG9SLedw" Received: from epcas2p2.samsung.com (unknown [182.195.41.54]) by mailout2.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTP id 20261015072308epoutp02349ea34419430fb6956f68452027d05a~eow_ONTbU1254112541epoutp02k for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 07:23:08 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailout2.samsung.com 20261015072308epoutp02349ea34419430fb6956f68452027d05a~eow_ONTbU1254112541epoutp02k DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=samsung.com; s=mail20170921; t=1792048988; bh=mzgpWt5GGty/dFKO10uL2LGjZTMzcw//rSUxcOQYofI=; h=Subject:Reply-To:From:To:CC:In-Reply-To:Date:References:From; b=tG9SLedwVr0vpK5hrhsLcjRFy4vU7d3uzWRTnosQ7qElVSsEd8rSezGJL7NZuqQCQ x0AEqEKXa7X+j3divkqDityEP4FfysxXihy8Zb49665FO5XdEvA2y4WC/JDVcpwVrY yY/S+B/dNJEko2hJ+W/3enow5tZk5auugztj3gZw= Received: from epsnrtp03.localdomain (unknown [182.195.42.155]) by epcas2p1.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTPS id 20261015072308epcas2p1a5fd64d6aad5cfe556346c3fc133828b~eow9zGyFZ0873508735epcas2p1B; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 07:23:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from epcas2p1.samsung.com (unknown [182.195.38.209]) by epsnrtp03.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4j500X1cZ8z3hhT9; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 07:23:08 +0000 (GMT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE:(2) [PATCH v3 5/9] xfs: refuse a direct allocation whose block reservation would wrap Reply-To: daejun7.park@samsung.com Sender: Daejun Park From: Daejun Park To: Christoph Hellwig CC: Carlos Maiolino , "linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" , "Darrick J. Wong" , Dave Chinner , Chuck Lever , Jeff Layton , Dai Ngo , Sergey Bashirov , Andrey Albershteyn , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Daejun Park X-Priority: 3 X-Content-Kind-Code: NORMAL In-Reply-To: <20261015060932.GD14035@lst.de> X-CPGS-Detection: blocking_info_exchange X-Drm-Type: N,general X-Msg-Generator: Mail X-Msg-Type: PERSONAL X-Reply-Demand: N Message-ID: <20261015072307epcms2p858823bf9dcc139b102794d87e2efe5e2@epcms2p8> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 16:23:07 +0900 X-CMS-MailID: 20261015072307epcms2p858823bf9dcc139b102794d87e2efe5e2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Sendblock-Type: AUTO_CONFIDENTIAL CMS-TYPE: 102P X-CPGSPASS: Y X-CPGSPASS: Y cpgsPolicy: CPGSC10-223,Y X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CMS-RootMailID: 20261015060942epcas2p4bcb321d2f040673f793404daa724e83c References: <20261015060932.GD14035@lst.de> <20261015-xfs-pnfs-batch-v3-0-54fc7b2e467d@samsung.com> <20261015-xfs-pnfs-batch-v3-5-54fc7b2e467d@samsung.com> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 08:09:32AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I think the limit needs to be lower, as xfs_bmapi_write can't hand > out such large limits. We'll also need to make sure pnfs can > request multiple maps. Thanks, I'll limit the count to XFS_MAX_BMBT_EXTLEN in v4. nfsd asks again for the rest of the range since commit cc6c40e09d7b ("NFSD/blocklayout: Support multiple extents per LAYOUTGET"), and letting a single ->map_blocks call return several mappings is what patches 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the ->map_blocks series did [1]; I'll resend those for the next cycle. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20261008-xfs-nfsd-map-blocks-v1-0-560026cdccb6@samsung.com