Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Jun 2018 17:53:47 +0200 | From | David Sterba <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] fs: btrfs: Change return type to vm_fault_t |
| |
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 07:54:44PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > @@ -9009,7 +9007,7 @@ int btrfs_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf) > unlock_extent_cached(io_tree, page_start, page_end, &cached_state); > > out_unlock: > - if (!ret) { > + if (!ret2) { > btrfs_delalloc_release_extents(BTRFS_I(inode), PAGE_SIZE, true); > sb_end_pagefault(inode->i_sb); > extent_changeset_free(data_reserved);
9013 return VM_FAULT_LOCKED; 9014 } 9015 unlock_page(page); 9016 out: 9017 btrfs_delalloc_release_extents(BTRFS_I(inode), PAGE_SIZE, (ret != 0)); 9018 btrfs_delalloc_release_space(inode, data_reserved, page_start, 9019 reserved_space, (ret != 0));
I've noticed that there's 'ret' used on lines 9017 and 19, comparing to a raw number. Is this going to be ok once vm_fault_t is it's own type?
There's no corresponding define for 0 among the VM_FAULT_* values, I'd expect 0 to work interchangeably, similar to the blk_status_t type:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/blk_types.h#L30
#define BLK_STS_OK 0 #define BLK_STS_NOTSUPP ((__force blk_status_t)1) #define BLK_STS_TIMEOUT ((__force blk_status_t)2) #define BLK_STS_NOSPC ((__force blk_status_t)3) ...
Your patch is otherwise ok, I'm just curious if this is something to watch for once vmfault type is switched.
| |