From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f198.google.com (mail-wr0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304EB6B0005 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 05:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f198.google.com with SMTP id y16-v6so14702482wrp.19 for ; Wed, 30 May 2018 02:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de. [213.95.11.211]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b6-v6si10045794wrm.331.2018.05.30.02.52.51 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 May 2018 02:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 11:59:11 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 11/34] iomap: move IOMAP_F_BOUNDARY to gfs2 Message-ID: <20180530095911.GB31068@lst.de> References: <20180523144357.18985-1-hch@lst.de> <20180523144357.18985-12-hch@lst.de> <20180530055033.GZ30110@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Steven Whitehouse Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:30:32AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > I may have missed the context here, but I thought that the boundary was a > generic thing meaning "there will have to be a metadata read before more > blocks can be mapped" so I'm not sure why that would now be GFS2 specific? It was always a hack. But with iomap it doesn't make any sensee to start with, all metadata I/O happens in iomap_begin, so there is no point in marking an iomap with flags like this for the actual iomap interface.