[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170511074035.GA15626@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 00:40:35 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.com, hch@...radead.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
sagi@...mberg.me, avi@...lladb.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
tom.leiming@...il.com, Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Use RWF_* flags for AIO operations
Please add subsystem prefixes to your subject lines, e.g.
fs:
for all the generic fs ones,
xfs:
for XFS,
block:
for block layer changes, etc.
>
> - if (flags & ~(RWF_HIPRI | RWF_DSYNC | RWF_SYNC))
> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -
> init_sync_kiocb(&kiocb, filp);
> - if (flags & RWF_HIPRI)
> - kiocb.ki_flags |= IOCB_HIPRI;
> - if (flags & RWF_DSYNC)
> - kiocb.ki_flags |= IOCB_DSYNC;
> - if (flags & RWF_SYNC)
> - kiocb.ki_flags |= (IOCB_DSYNC | IOCB_SYNC);
> + ret = kiocb_set_rw_flags(&kiocb, flags);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
And please split factoring out kiocb_set_rw_flags into a separate
prep patch.
Otherwise these changes look fine:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists