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:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:04:21 +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 v5 08/12] ext4: update direct I/O read to do trylock in
 IOCB_NOWAIT cases
Message-ID: <20191022020421.GE5092@athena.bobrowski.net>
References: <cover.1571647178.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <5ee370a435eb08fb14579c7c197b16e9fa0886f0.1571647179.git.mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
 <20191021134817.GG25184@quack2.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191021134817.GG25184@quack2.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:48:17PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 21-10-19 20:18:46, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > This patch updates the lock pattern in ext4_dio_read_iter() to only
> > perform the trylock in IOCB_NOWAIT cases.
> 
> The changelog is actually misleading. It should say something like "This
> patch updates the lock pattern in ext4_dio_read_iter() to not block on
> inode lock in case of IOCB_NOWAIT direct IO reads."
> 
> Also to ease backporting of easy fixes, we try to put patches like this
> early in the series (fixing code in ext4_direct_IO_read(), and then the
> fixed code would just carry over to ext4_dio_read_iter()).

OK, understood. Now I know this for next time. :)

Providing that I have this patch precede the ext4_dio_read_iter()
patch and implement this lock pattern in ext4_direct_IO_read(), am I
OK to add the 'Reviewed-by' tag?

--<M>--