[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8138f79c-7390-4754-b5f0-8320e82f81f8@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 16:48:51 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, brauner@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz,
dchinner@...hat.com, hch@....de, cem@...nel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, catherine.hoang@...cle.com,
mcgrof@...nel.org, ritesh.list@...il.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/7] xfs: Validate atomic writes
On 01/10/2024 15:48, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
>> +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
>> @@ -679,7 +679,12 @@ __iomap_dio_rw(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter
>> *iter,
>> if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
>> trace_iomap_dio_invalidate_fail(inode, iomi.pos,
>> iomi.len);
>> - ret = -ENOTBLK;
>> + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC) {
>> + if (ret == -ENOTBLK)
>> + ret = -EAGAIN;
> I don't follow the logic here -- all the error codes except for EAGAIN
> are squashed into ENOTBLK, so why would we let them through for an
> atomic write?
Right, the errors apart from EAGAIN are normally squashed to ENOTBLK;
but I thought that since we would not do this for IOCB_ATOMIC, then just
return the actual error from kiocb_invalidate_pages() - apart from
ENOTBLK, which has this special treatment.
But I can always just return EAGAIN for IOCB_ATOMIC when
kiocb_invalidate_pages() errors, as you suggest below.
>
> if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
> trace_iomap_dio_invalidate_fail(inode, iomi.pos,
> iomi.len);
>
> if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC) {
> /*
> * folio invalidation failed, maybe this is
> * transient, unlock and see if the caller
> * tries again
> */
> return -EAGAIN;
> } else {
> /* fall back to buffered write */
> return -ENOTBLK;
> }
> }
Cheers,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists