Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <459eec8a5cd41316aedbff6287900cd92ff92b52.camel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] netfs: release the folio lock and put the folio
 before retrying
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     xiubli@redhat.com, idryomov@gmail.com, vshankar@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        willy@infradead.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com
Date:   Tue, 05 Jul 2022 09:41:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <2187946.1657027284@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <30a4bd0e19626f5fb30f19f0ae70fba2debb361a.camel@kernel.org>
         <20220701022947.10716-1-xiubli@redhat.com>
         <20220701022947.10716-2-xiubli@redhat.com>
         <2187946.1657027284@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.2 (3.44.2-1.fc36) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2022-07-05 at 14:21 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>=20
> > I don't know here... I think it might be better to just expect that whe=
n
> > this function returns an error that the folio has already been unlocked=
.
> > Doing it this way will mean that you will lock and unlock the folio a
> > second time for no reason.
>=20
> I seem to remember there was some reason you wanted the folio unlocking a=
nd
> putting.  I guess you need to drop the ref to flush it.
>=20
> Would it make sense for ->check_write_begin() to be passed a "struct foli=
o
> **folio" rather than "struct folio *folio" and then the filesystem can cl=
ear
> *folio if it disposes of the page?
>=20

I'd be OK with that too.
--=20
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>