On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:12:28PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:02:29PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> > As is done in zram_rw_page, pmem_rw_page, and btt_rw_page, don't >> > call page_endio in the error case since do_mpage_readpage and >> > __mpage_writepage will resubmit on error. Calling page_endio in the >> > error case leads to double completion. >> > >> > Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > Noticed this while looking at unrelated brd code... >> >> And the real question would be: where would we see any real life impact >> of just removing brd_rw_page? > > I've got patches ready that remove rw_page from brd, btt and pmem. I'll send > out once I'm done regression testing. That would leave zram_rw_page(), is there a compelling reason to keep that and the related infrastructure?
