On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:23:26AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> I think it needs to go away.
/me will keep it in mind
>
> > OTOH, what will this code do if bmap() finds that there
> > is no ->bmap present and returns 0?
>
> I think we just need to fix the bmap() prototype so that it can return
> error, which would be very useful for various reasons. Something like
> this:
>
> int bmap(struct address_space *mapping, sector_t *block)
> {
> if (!mapping->a_ops->bmap)
> return -EINVAL;
> *block = mapping->a_ops->bmap(mapping, *block);
> return 0;
> }
>
> then add fiemap support with real error handling later.
Will do, thanks for the suggestion.
--
Carlos
