[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFqt6zZckYhLJuJr9TSw2KOZrt6qD25xDctuvbKfm0jyBoPycA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 11:33:48 +0530
From: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, kemi.wang@...el.com,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nilfs <linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Convert return type int to vm_fault_t
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:03 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 22:55:47 +0530 Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Return type for fault handlers in ext4 and nilfs are
> > changed to use vm_fault_t.
> >
> > Return type of block_page_mkwrite() is changed from
> > int to vm_fault_t. The function signature of
> > block_page_mkwrite() is changed to add one new parameter
> > int *err. This will provide a way for caller functions
> > to get error value along with return value and use it
> > further.
> >
> > Return type of block_page_mkwrite_return() is also changed
> > to use new vm_fault_t type.
> > --- a/fs/nilfs2/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/nilfs2/file.c
> > @@ -51,13 +51,14 @@ int nilfs_sync_file(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end, int datasync)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > -static int nilfs_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > +static vm_fault_t nilfs_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>
> nilfs_page_mkwrite() already has return type vm_fault_t in Linus's
> kernel, due to the now-merged
> fs-nilfs2-adding-new-return-type-vm_fault_t.patch. Looks like a simple
> fix.
>
> I'm beginning to feel vm_fault_t exhaustion. Please remind me what
> benefit we're going to get out of all this churn?
The problem and benefit of these changes was discussed under this mail
thread when the first vm_fault_t patch was posted.
https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=152054772413234&w=4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists