[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170726191305.GC15980@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:13:05 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: add file_fdatawait_range and
file_write_and_wait
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:55:36PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> +int file_write_and_wait(struct file *file)
> +{
> + int err = 0, err2;
> + struct address_space *mapping = file->f_mapping;
> +
> + if ((!dax_mapping(mapping) && mapping->nrpages) ||
> + (dax_mapping(mapping) && mapping->nrexceptional)) {
Since patch 1 exists, shouldn't this use the new helper?
> + err = filemap_fdatawrite(mapping);
> + /* See comment of filemap_write_and_wait() */
> + if (err != -EIO) {
> + loff_t i_size = i_size_read(mapping->host);
> +
> + if (i_size != 0)
> + __filemap_fdatawait_range(mapping, 0,
> + i_size - 1);
> + }
> + }
> + err2 = file_check_and_advance_wb_err(file);
> + if (!err)
> + err = err2;
> + return err;
Would this be clearer written as:
if (err)
return err;
return err2;
or even ...
return err ? err : err2;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists