From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m16.mail.163.com (m16.mail.163.com [117.135.210.5]) (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 A342725B08E for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 10:19:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=117.135.210.5 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791195591; cv=none; b=E9AKeyaaYx0z5Zirmh46VESAIHbfKhkcIQdIGlhvxYhFbWqQpw2JDAfXATtUXG3npO0ZkP2UyIxHnaCkXPARqN+3SSPkNlMs8HjoF9oh60fgPxyutwq9pl/Ggoufb3Pr2in9gCrOJGeD4DMGspQMJs+yrTZjXrVpsO+K/IYMaKc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791195591; c=relaxed/simple; bh=m8VC3pRHpIqrv1YWkEuKGNAG7iLcdWy3U39CgI31IGs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=sw5wbD5zDRZ7LFcu8ui4AoMp9u9ijAXNaNjH9h68M69bbWbxSuSZgwWIYJZ60AyiIXJnyWle4xvcL+K7l6JfwtZGIY/uQwpMmDOsFcDNONDPTK7iGDAp025CIMmU9jSnnEtfLWx8ta+vQRlXHy1jesQ8e6B31VaqzOMopUF8So8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b=jpWYfDXr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=117.135.210.5 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b="jpWYfDXr" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From: Content-Type; bh=3eZ6GNi20XHQW1yJA5fWUBUG2ACfvX8eDYNXUASk5oo=; b=jpWYfDXrlUzu2FUveGhF15ZQPEc42X+Pb/31nlEWQ9MfjRS8cp6duM+kuvsqza wVKIzXU87SFcYzVzR/3SSMa1mqm+xKHLc2Ik1I63gNI6q9yGclIwj5hz5x0G7fsq B2g9/Tdvx0NOrq3sgqpOQwYqWm4jzcMbeJ0WTKVUKd9i8= Message-ID: <5b101dea-77ef-4ae7-b8d9-54df20b0a6a5@163.com> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 18:18:54 +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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] exfat: dirty all new pages when extending valid_size To: Namjae Jeon Cc: exfat@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yuezhang.Mo@sony.com, dxdt@dev.snart.me, sj1557.seo@samsung.com, Chi Zhiling , Jiale Yao References: <20261004101934.1975655-1-chizhiling@163.com> <20261004101934.1975655-4-chizhiling@163.com> From: Chi Zhiling In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CM-TRANSID:PygvCgCHJ1aOecNqakDWCw--.17545S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoWruFy8ZFW5CF1DtF4UZFWUJwb_yoW8Jr1DpF yqgw45JrW8Ww18Gan7tF4xXF1F939xWF4fW3s8X34UAa15WFyDCFWrC3yjkF1ftw4Dt34j va98Xr98uryDCrJanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07UL2-OUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: hfkl6xxlol0wi6rwjhhfrp/xtbC3BEOq2rDeZGB-gAA3W On 10/5/26 5:08 PM, Namjae Jeon wrote: >> @@ -664,90 +664,30 @@ int exfat_file_fsync(struct file *filp, loff_t start, loff_t end, int datasync) >> static int exfat_zero_new_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end) > Function name and comments no longer seem to match. What do you think > about changing them like this? > > /* > * exfat_prepare_valid_range - populate and dirty folios covering [start, end) > * > * Populate missing blocks via the read path, which zero-fills data > * beyond the current valid_size while preserving uptodate blocks. > * Mark entire folios dirty so the newly valid range is written back. > * > * Call before advancing valid_size. > */ Okay, I'll add it to v3. > > And generic/538 test fails with this patch set. Please check if this > test failure is reproducible for you as well. I ran the tests, but I wasn't able to reproduce the failure. Could you tell me the block size and cluster size used to reproduce it? There is also a new failure in generic/551. This failure can be fixed by adding inode_dio_wait() to exfat_extend_valid_size(). Jiale's patch includes this fix: https://lore.kernel.org/exfat/20261003093035.532916-4-yaojiale02@163.com/T/#u Thanks.