lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 14/27] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting
On Wed 10-05-17 08:19:50, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 09-05-17 11:49:17, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/file_table.c b/fs/file_table.c
> > > index 954d510b765a..d6138b6411ff 100644
> > > --- a/fs/file_table.c
> > > +++ b/fs/file_table.c
> > > @@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ struct file *alloc_file(const struct path *path, fmode_t mode,
> > > file->f_path = *path;
> > > file->f_inode = path->dentry->d_inode;
> > > file->f_mapping = path->dentry->d_inode->i_mapping;
> > > + file->f_wb_err = filemap_sample_wb_error(file->f_mapping);
> >
> > Why do you sample here when you also sample in do_dentry_open()? I didn't
> > find any alloc_file() callers that would possibly care about writeback
> > errors...
> >
> > Honza
>
> I basically used the setting of f_mapping as a guideline as to where to
> sample it for initialization. My thinking was that if f_mapping ever
> ended up different then you'd probably also want f_wb_err to be
> resampled anyway.

OK, makes sense.

> I can drop this hunk if you think we don't need it.

I don't really care. I was just wondering whether I'm missing something...

Honza

--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-10 21:21    [W:0.052 / U:13.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site