==> Regarding Re: [RFC 0/5] dio: clean up completion phase of direct_io_worker(); Zach Brown <zach.brown@xxxxxxxxxx> adds: >> This all looks good, the code is much easier to follow. What do you think >> about making dio->result an unsigned quantity? It should never be negative >> now that there is an io_error field. zach.brown> Yeah, that has always bugged me too. I considered renaming it zach.brown> 'issued', or something, as part of this patchset but thought we zach.brown> could do it later. I figured since you were doing some house-keeping, we might as well clean up as much as possible. It's up to you, though. ;) zach.brown> While we're on this topic, I'm nervious that we increment it zach.brown> when do_direct_IO fails. It might be sound, but that we zach.brown> consider it the amount of work "transferred" for dio->end_io zach.brown> makes me want to make sure there aren't confusing corner cases zach.brown> here. It does look non-obvious when reading the code. However, I'm pretty sure it's right. dio->block_in_file is only updated if there is no error returned from submit_page_section. As such, it really does reflect how much work was done before the error, right? It does seem odd that we do this math in two separate places, though. -Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
