Messages in this thread | | | From | Mike Marshall <> | Date | Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:05:14 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Adding new return type vm_fault_t |
| |
Souptick Joarder: Any comment for this patch?
Thanks for sending it <g>...
I have it in my stack, but I haven't studied it, or xfstested it yet, so no useful comments yet...
-Mike
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote: >> Use new return type vm_fault_t for fault handler. For now, >> this is just documenting that the function returns a VM_FAULT >> value rather than an errno. Once all instances are converted, >> vm_fault_t will become a distinct type. >> >> See the following >> commit 1c8f422059ae ("mm: change return type to vm_fault_t") >> >> Fixed checkpatch.pl warning. >> >> Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> >> --- >> fs/orangefs/file.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/orangefs/file.c b/fs/orangefs/file.c >> index db0b521..a5a2fe7 100644 >> --- a/fs/orangefs/file.c >> +++ b/fs/orangefs/file.c >> @@ -528,18 +528,19 @@ static long orangefs_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long ar >> return ret; >> } >> >> -static int orangefs_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) >> +static vm_fault_t orangefs_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) >> { >> struct file *file = vmf->vma->vm_file; >> - int rc; >> - rc = orangefs_inode_getattr(file->f_mapping->host, 0, 1, >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = orangefs_inode_getattr(file->f_mapping->host, 0, 1, >> STATX_SIZE); >> - if (rc == -ESTALE) >> - rc = -EIO; >> - if (rc) { >> - gossip_err("%s: orangefs_inode_getattr failed, " >> - "rc:%d:.\n", __func__, rc); >> - return rc; >> + if (ret == -ESTALE) >> + ret = -EIO; >> + if (ret) { >> + gossip_err("%s: orangefs_inode_getattr failed, ret:%d:.\n", >> + __func__, ret); >> + return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS; >> } >> return filemap_fault(vmf); >> } >> -- >> 1.9.1 >> > > Any comment for this patch ?
| |