Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:39:15 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/1][RFC] mm: prepare_write positive return value |
| |
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:33:46 +0300 Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@sw.ru> wrote:
> Almost all read/write operation handles data with chunks(segments or pages) > and result has integral behaviour for folowing scenario: > for_each_chunk() { > res = op(....); > if(IS_ERROR(res)) > return progress ? progress : res; > progress += res; > } > prepare_write may has integral behaviour in case of blksize < pgsize, > for example we successfully allocated/read some blocks, but not all of them, > and than some error happend. Currently we eliminate this progress by doing > vmtrunate() after prepare_has failed. > It is good to have ability to signal about this progress. Interprete positive > prepare_write() ret code as bytes num that fs ready to handle at this moment. > I've ask SAW, he think it is sane. This size always less than PAGE_CACHE_SIZE > so it less than AOP_TRUNCATED_PAGE too. > > BTH: This approach was used in OpenVZ 2.6.9 kernel in order to make FS with > delayed allocation more correct, and its works well. > I think not everybody will happy about this, but let's discuss all advantages > and disadvantages of this change.
That seems to be a logical change. We'd need to review all the callers and callees to make sure that they handle this change correctly.
Your changes deviate quite a lot from standard kernel coding style. Please fix that.
Please cc linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org on the next version of these patches. I'm seriously running out of bandwidth over here and ext4 has other maintainers.
Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |