On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 06:34:45PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: >> > The fact that ext4_page_mkwrite() returns a vm_fault_t, while >> > block_page_mkwrite() returns an int which then has to get translated >> > into a vm_fault_t via block_page_mkwrite_return() is I suspect going >> > to confuse an awful lot of callers. >> >> We have also changed block_page_mkwrite() to return vm_fault_t, but in >> a different patch. Hopefully that patch will be in linux-next tree soon. > > I didn't sign off on that, so that's not "we", but "I". And this is > completely against everything I've been telling you for this whole effort. > Patches should each make sense individually. You can't make this patch > dependent on another patch without putting that in writing. It was mistake form my side. Sorry about it. > > Leave block_page_mkwrite() alone for now. Eventually it should return > a vm_fault_t, probably. But that patch needs to be delayed at least > one kernel cycle. As caller of block_page_mkwrite() are - fs/ext4/inode.c fs/nilfs2/file.c I will merge both changes in a single patch and send it.
