[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2187946.1657027284@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 14:21:24 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, xiubli@...hat.com, idryomov@...il.com,
vshankar@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
keescook@...omium.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cachefs@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] netfs: release the folio lock and put the folio before retrying
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
> I don't know here... I think it might be better to just expect that when
> this function returns an error that the folio has already been unlocked.
> Doing it this way will mean that you will lock and unlock the folio a
> second time for no reason.
I seem to remember there was some reason you wanted the folio unlocking and
putting. I guess you need to drop the ref to flush it.
Would it make sense for ->check_write_begin() to be passed a "struct folio
**folio" rather than "struct folio *folio" and then the filesystem can clear
*folio if it disposes of the page?
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists