Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:04:33 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: return an ERR_PTR from __filemap_get_folio v2
Message-Id: <20230328160433.4f3dc32b480239bce9e2f9ef@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230121065755.1140136-1-hch@lst.de>
References: <20230121065755.1140136-1-hch@lst.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 07:57:48 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> __filemap_get_folio and its wrappers can return NULL for three different
> conditions, which in some cases requires the caller to reverse engineer
> the decision making.  This is fixed by returning an ERR_PTR instead of
> NULL and thus transporting the reason for the failure.  But to make
> that work we first need to ensure that no xa_value special case is
> returned and thus return the FGP_ENTRY flag.  It turns out that flag
> is barely used and can usually be deal with in a better way.
> 
> Note that the shmem patches in here are non-trivial and need some
> careful review and testing.

How are we going with the review and testing.  I assume that
we're now OK on the runtime testing front, but do you feel that
review has been adequate?

Thanks.