[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c1fbe4bc-79ee-07a0-8f3a-cd8c318c80be@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:27:30 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: drop "wait" parameter from write_one_page
On 03/08/2017 03:30 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
[...]
> Thanks for having a look. That blurb in the changelog refers to the
> kerneldoc comment over write_one_page below...
>
>>
>> No existing caller uses this on normal files, so
>>> none of them need it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
[...]
>>>
>>> /**
>>> - * write_one_page - write out a single page and optionally wait on I/O
>>> + * write_one_page - write out a single page and wait on I/O
>>> * @page: the page to write
>>> - * @wait: if true, wait on writeout
>>> *
>>> * The page must be locked by the caller and will be unlocked upon return.
>>> *
>>> - * write_one_page() returns a negative error code if I/O failed.
>>> + * write_one_page() returns a negative error code if I/O failed. Note that
>>> + * the address_space is not marked for error. The caller must do this if
>>> + * needed.
>
> ...specifically the single sentence in the comment above.
>
> As I said, none of the existing callers need to set an error in the
> mapping when this fails, so I just added this to make it clear for any
> new callers in the future.
Yes, somehow, even in this tiny patchset, I missed those two new comment lines.
arghh. :)
Well, everything looks great, then.
thanks,
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists