Re: [PATCH v5 05/17] ext2: return -EIO on ext2_iomap_end() failure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri 07-10-16 15:08:52, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> Right now we just return 0 for success, but we really want to let callers
> know about this failure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/ext2/inode.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext2/inode.c b/fs/ext2/inode.c
> index c7dbb46..368913c 100644
> --- a/fs/ext2/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext2/inode.c
> @@ -830,8 +830,10 @@ ext2_iomap_end(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t length,
>  {
>  	if (iomap->type == IOMAP_MAPPED &&
>  	    written < length &&
> -	    (flags & IOMAP_WRITE))
> +	    (flags & IOMAP_WRITE)) {
>  		ext2_write_failed(inode->i_mapping, offset + length);
> +		return -EIO;
> +	}

So this is wrong. This (written < length) happens when we fail to copy data
to / from userspace buffer into pagecache pages / DAX blocks. It may be
because the passed buffer pointer is just wrong, or just because the page
got swapped out and we have to swap it back in. It is a role of upper
layers to decide what went wrong and proceed accordingly but from filesystem
point of view we just have to cancel the operation we have prepared and
return to upper layers. So returning 0 in this case is correct.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
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



[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux