On 9/5/18 8:57 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> Prepare the field to use ->fiemap for FIBMAP ioctl
>
> Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c | 5 ++---
> fs/ecryptfs/mmap.c | 5 ++---
> fs/ioctl.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c b/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
> index 40f7595aad10..186e203d64a7 100644
> --- a/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
> +++ b/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
> @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ int cachefiles_read_or_alloc_page(struct fscache_retrieval *op,
> block0 = page->index;
> block0 <<= shift;
>
> - block = inode->i_mapping->a_ops->bmap(inode->i_mapping, block0);
> + block = bmap(inode, block0);
Prior to this there's an ASSERT that inode->i_mapping->a_ops->bmap
exists. Should that stay, if the goal is to move all ->bmap use out
of calling code? OTOH, what will this code do if bmap() finds that there
is no ->bmap present and returns 0?
> _debug("%llx -> %llx",
> (unsigned long long) block0,
> (unsigned long long) block);
> @@ -737,8 +737,7 @@ int cachefiles_read_or_alloc_pages(struct fscache_retrieval *op,
> block0 = page->index;
> block0 <<= shift;
>
> - block = inode->i_mapping->a_ops->bmap(inode->i_mapping,
> - block0);
> + block = bmap(inode, block0);
> _debug("%llx -> %llx",
> (unsigned long long) block0,
> (unsigned long long) block);
> diff --git a/fs/ecryptfs/mmap.c b/fs/ecryptfs/mmap.c
> index cdf358b209d9..16626fce5754 100644
> --- a/fs/ecryptfs/mmap.c
> +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/mmap.c
> @@ -544,9 +544,8 @@ static sector_t ecryptfs_bmap(struct address_space *mapping, sector_t block)
>
> inode = (struct inode *)mapping->host;
> lower_inode = ecryptfs_inode_to_lower(inode);
> - if (lower_inode->i_mapping->a_ops->bmap)
> - rc = lower_inode->i_mapping->a_ops->bmap(lower_inode->i_mapping,
> - block);
> +
> + rc = bmap(lower_inode, block);
> return rc;
> }
>
> diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
> index 3212c29235ce..413585d58415 100644
> --- a/fs/ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/ioctl.c
> @@ -53,19 +53,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(vfs_ioctl);
>
> static int ioctl_fibmap(struct file *filp, int __user *p)
> {
> - struct address_space *mapping = filp->f_mapping;
> + struct inode *inode = filp->f_inode;
> int res, block;
>
> - /* do we support this mess? */
> - if (!mapping->a_ops->bmap)
> - return -EINVAL;
> if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
> return -EPERM;
> res = get_user(block, p);
> if (res)
> return res;
> - res = mapping->a_ops->bmap(mapping, block);
> - return put_user(res, p);
> +
> + res = bmap(inode, block);
> +
> + if (res)
> + return put_user(res, p);
> + else
> + return -EINVAL;
So now mapping a hole will return -EINVAL? I don't think that change
in behavior is ok.
-Eric
> }
>
> /**
>
