On Sat 22-01-11 22:29:01, Joel Becker wrote: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:40:49AM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 07:32:44PM -0800, Manish Katiyar wrote: > > > Hi Jan, > > > > > > This is the follow up from https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/17/154 > > > Following patches make jbd2 to use GFP_KERNEL for transaction > > > allocation if the caller can handle the errors. Following is the list > > > of functions that I updated to pass the new flag. Also below is the > > > list of functions which still have the old behavior and pass the old > > > flags (either because they can't deal with errors, or I wasn't too > > > sure so I did conservatively). Appreciate your feedback. The other > > > callers of jbd2_journal_start() are from ocfs2, they still pass the > > > old flag. > > > > Hmm, I wonder if it would be better to use > > > > jbd2_journal_start(...) > > > > and > > > > jbd2_journal_start_nofail(...) > > This API is markedly better to read. Btw, does _nofail() mean no > possible failures, or just no memory errors? If it is no failures, I'd > love to see the function become void. jbd2_journal_start can always fail e.g. because the journal is aborted. So it really just means no memory failures... > > The tradeoff is that long-term, the code is more readable (as opposed > > to having people look up what a random "true" or "false" value means). > > But short-term, while it will make the patch smaller, it also makes > > the patch harder audit, since we need to look at all of the places > > where we _haven't_ made a change to make sure those call sites can > > tolerate an error return. > > I think we should start with jbd2_journal_start_can_fail() or > something like it, and change it back to jbd2_journal_start() in the > next window. It's a silly name, but it catches exactly what you are > worried about. Yes, I think this would be nice for auditting (but for that matter current interface with additional argument isn't bad either and we can just do the rename to _nofail in the final patch...). Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
