[<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
 
