From: Souptick Joarder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Convert return type int to vm_fault_t Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 21:51:28 +0530 Message-ID: References: <20180830172547.GA4408@jordon-HP-15-Notebook-PC> <20180830163521.728f3ff2fd3cc93b52a5dcc0@linux-foundation.org> <20180831165844.GB3303@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Andrew Morton , Ryusuke Konishi , Al Viro , adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, Jens Axboe , "Darrick J. Wong" , Eric Biggers , Philippe Ombredanne , Andreas Gruenbacher , Greg KH , kemi.wang@intel.com, Matthew Wilcox , linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-nilfs Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180831165844.GB3303@thunk.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org > Also, the fact that the patch series involves multiple file system is > a massive pain. It means I'm going to have to do a separate > regression test --- or preferably, I would ask *you* to run a file > system regression test[1] --- to make sure what is *not* a trivial > patch doesn't break things. Also, it means that this patch series is > going to get more complicated to get into kernel, and we may have to > deal with patch conflicts if this goes in via some third party tree > (such as Andrew's tree). > > [1] https:/thunk.org/gce-xfstests Sure, I will run the regression. > > One way to make life easier is to add the new function with the new > interface first, and then wait a release cycle, and then move file > systems over in independant patches. In last review, you left it to me either to add new function or modify the input parameters of block_page_mkwrite() to return err to caller. As block_page_mkwrite() is getting called from 2 places in ext4 & nilfs, I choose to add new input argument in block_page_mkwrite() rather than introducing new function and put everything in a single commit.