On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:07:28AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:04:25AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > @@ -456,15 +435,8 @@ iomap_readpages(struct address_space *mapping, struct list_head *pages, > > > unlock_page(ctx.cur_page); > > > put_page(ctx.cur_page); > > > } > > > - > > > - /* > > > - * Check that we didn't lose a page due to the arcance calling > > > - * conventions.. > > > - */ > > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!ret && !list_empty(ctx.pages)); > > > - return ret; > > > > After all the discussion about "if we still have ctx.cur_page we should > > just stop" in v7, I'm surprised that this patch now doesn't say much of > > anything, not even a WARN_ON()? > > The code quoted above puts the cur_page reference. By dropping the > odd refactoring patch there is no need to check for cur_page being > left as a special condition as that still is the normal loop exit > state and properly handled, just as in the original iomap code. DOH. Yes, yes it does. Thanks for pointing that out. :) /me hands himself another cup of coffee, Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> --D
