Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] xfs: Update atomic write max size

[John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>]

On 10/03/2025 11:11, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:54:23AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> On 10/03/2025 10:06, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
>>>> index fbed172d6770..bc96b8214173 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
>>>> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ typedef struct xfs_mount {
>>>>    	bool			m_fail_unmount;
>>>>    	bool			m_finobt_nores; /* no per-AG finobt resv. */
>>>>    	bool			m_update_sb;	/* sb needs update in mount */
>>>> +	xfs_extlen_t		awu_max;	/* data device max atomic write */
>>> Could you please rename this to something else? All fields within xfs_mount
>>> follows the same pattern m_<name>. Perhaps m_awu_max?
>> Fine, but I think I then need to deal with spilling multiple lines to
>> accommodate a proper comment.
>>
>>> I was going to send a patch replacing it once I had this merged, but giving
>>> Dave's new comments, and the conflicts with zoned devices, you'll need to send a
>>> V5, so, please include this change if nobody else has any objections on keeping
>>> the xfs_mount naming convention.
>> What branch do you want me to send this against?
> I just pushed everything to for-next, so you can just rebase it against for-next
> 
> Notice this includes the iomap patches you sent in this series which Christian
> picked up. So if you need to re-work something on the iomap patches, you'll
> probably need to take this into account.

Your branch includes the iomap changes, so hard to deal with.

For the iomap change, Dave was suggesting a name change only, so not a 
major issue.

So if we really want to go with a name change, then I could add a patch 
to change the name only and include in the v5.

Review comments are always welcome, but I wish that they did not come so 
late...

Thanks,
John