On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 01:36:56PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2021/3/30 上午2:53, David Sterba wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:14:32PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> v3: > >> - Rename the sysfs to supported_sectorsizes > >> > >> - Rebased to latest misc-next branch > >> This removes 2 cleanup patches. > >> > >> - Add new overview comment for subpage metadata > > > > V3 is now in for-next, targeting merge for 5.13. Please post any fixups > > as replies to the individual patches, I'll fold them in, rather a full > > series resend. Thanks. > > > Is it possible to drop patch "[PATCH v3 04/13] btrfs: refactor how we > iterate ordered extent in btrfs_invalidatepage()"?
Dropped, there were no conflicts in the followup patches. > Since in the series, there are no other patches touching it, dropping it > should not involve too much hassle. > > The problem here is, how we handle ordered extent really belongs to the > data write path. > > Furthermore, after all the data RW related testing, it turns out that > the ordered extent code has several problems: > > - Separate indicators for ordered extent > We use PagePriavte2 to indicate whether we have pending ordered extent > io. > But it is not properly integrated into ordered extent code, nor really > properly documented. > > - Complex call sites requirement > For endio we don't care whether we finished the ordered extent, while > for invalidatepage, we don't really need to bother if we finished all > the ordered extents in the range. > > Thus we really don't need to bother who finished the ordered extents, > but just want to mark the io finished for the range. > > - Lack subpage compatibility > That's why I'm here complaining, especially due to the PagePrivate2 > usage. > It needs to be converted to a new bitmap. > > There will be a refactor on the btrfs_dec_test_*_ordered_pending() > functions soon, and obvious the existing call sites will all be gone. > > Thus that fourth patch makes no sense. Ok, thanks for the explanation.
