Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:44:18 +1100
From:   Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        hch@infradead.org, david@fromorbit.com, darrick.wong@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/8] ext4: move inode extension/truncate code out from
 ->iomap_end() callback
Message-ID: <20191010054418.GD19064@bobrowski>
References: <cover.1570100361.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <da556191f9dba2b477cce57665ded57bfd396463.1570100361.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <20191008112512.GH5078@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20191009101848.GG2125@poseidon.bobrowski.net>
 <20191009125132.GC5050@quack2.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191009125132.GC5050@quack2.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 09-10-19 21:18:50, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > > Just small nits below:
> > > 
> > > > +static int ext4_handle_inode_extension(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> > > > +				       ssize_t written, size_t count)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > 
> > > I think both the function and callsites may be slightly simpler if you let
> > > the function return 'written' or error (not 0 or error). But I'll leave
> > > that decision upto you.
> > 
> > Hm, don't we actually need to return 0 for success cases so that
> > iomap_dio_complete() behaves correctly i.e. increments iocb->ki_pos,
> > etc?
> 
> Correct, iomap_dio_complete() expects 0 on success. So if we keep calling
> ext4_handle_inode_extension() from ->end_io handler, we'd need some
> specialcasing there and I agree that changing ext4_handle_inode_extension()
> return convention isn't then very beneficial. If we stop calling
> ext4_handle_inode_extension() from ->end_io handler (patch 8/8 discussion
> pending), then the change would be a clear win.

Agreed. Well, I think we've got some movement in the right direction in 8/8,
so it looks like changing up the return values is what we'll go ahead with.

--<M>--