[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260127062055.GA90735@sol>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:20:55 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, fsverity@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/16] fsverity: don't issue readahead for non-ENOENT
errors from __filemap_get_folio
On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 07:00:39AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > - if (PTR_ERR(folio) == -ENOENT ||
> > - !(IS_ERR(folio) && !folio_test_uptodate(folio))) {
> > + if (folio == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) ||
> > + (!IS_ERR(folio) && !folio_test_uptodate(folio))) {
> >
> > (Note that PTR_ERR() shouldn't be used before it's known that the
> > pointer is an error pointer.)
>
> That's new to me, and I can't find anything in the documentation or
> implementation suggesting that. Your example code above also does
> this as does plenty of code in the kernel elsewhere.
Not sure why this is controversial. The documentation for PTR_ERR() is
clear that it's for error pointers:
/**
* PTR_ERR - Extract the error code from an error pointer.
* @ptr: An error pointer.
* Return: The error code within @ptr.
*/
static inline long __must_check PTR_ERR(__force const void *ptr)
{
return (long) ptr;
}
Yes, it's really just a cast, and 'PTR_ERR(folio) == -ENOENT' actually
still works when folio isn't necessarily an error pointer. But normally
it would be written as a pointer comparison as I suggested.
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists