From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 17/18] xfs: minimal conversion to errseq_t writeback error reporting Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:45:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1498841154.4689.1.camel@redhat.com> References: <20170629131954.28733-1-jlayton@kernel.org> <20170629131954.28733-18-jlayton@kernel.org> <20170629141235.GB17251@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Jan Kara , tytso@mit.edu, axboe@kernel.dk, mawilcox@microsoft.com, ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com, corbet@lwn.net, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , "Darrick J . Wong" , Carlos Maiolino , Eryu Guan , David Howells , Liu Bo , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , jlayton@kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170629141235.GB17251@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 07:12 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Nice and simple, this looks great! > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Thanks! I think this turned out to be a lot cleaner too. For filesystems that use filemap_write_and_wait_range today this now becomes a pretty straight conversion to file_write_and_wait_range -- one liner patches for the most part. I've started rolling patches to do that, but now I'm wondering... Should I aim to do that with an individual patch for each fs, or is it better to do a swath of them all at once in a single patch here? -- Jeff Layton -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org