On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:56:46AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 2020/06/30 16:53, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 2020/06/30 16:43, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:37:07AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 2020/06/30 3:35, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:50:20AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
On 2020/06/26 2:18, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND flag to represent zone-append. User-space
sends this with write. Add IOCB_ZONE_APPEND which is set in
kiocb->ki_flags on receiving RWF_ZONE_APPEND.
Make direct IO submission path use IOCB_ZONE_APPEND to send bio with
append op. Direct IO completion returns zone-relative offset, in sector
unit, to upper layer using kiocb->ki_complete interface.
Report error if zone-append is requested on regular file or on sync
kiocb (i.e. one without ki_complete).
Signed-off-by: Kanchan Joshi <josh...@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: SelvaKumar S <selvakuma...@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnav Dawn <a.d...@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.she...@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Javier Gonzalez <javier.g...@samsung.com>
fs/block_dev.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
include/linux/fs.h | 9 +++++++++
include/uapi/linux/fs.h | 5 ++++-
3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
index 47860e5..5180268 100644
@@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ static unsigned int dio_bio_write_op(struct kiocb *iocb)
/* avoid the need for a I/O completion work item */
if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DSYNC)
op |= REQ_FUA;
+ if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ZONE_APPEND)
+ op |= REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND;
This is wrong. REQ_OP_WRITE is already set in the declaration of "op". How can
this work ?
REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND will override the REQ_WRITE op, while previously set op
flags (REQ_FUA etc.) will be retained. But yes, this can be made to look
V3 will include the other changes you pointed out. Thanks for the review.
REQ_OP_WRITE and REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND are different bits, so there is no
"override". A well formed BIO bi_opf is one op+flags. Specifying multiple OP
codes does not make sense.
one op+flags behavior is retained here. OP is not about bits (op flags are).
Had it been, REQ_OP_WRITE (value 1) can not be differentiated from
REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND (value 13).
We do not do "bio_op(bio) & REQ_OP_WRITE", rather we look at the
absolute value "bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_WRITE".
Sure, the ops are not bits like the flags, but (excluding the flags) doing:
op |= REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND;
will give you op == (REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND). That's not what you
And yes, REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND == REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND... But still
not a reason for not setting the op correctly :)
Right, this is what op override was about, and intent was to minimize
the changes in the existing function. As said before, completely agree about
changing, code should not draw suspicion.