On Thu 21-12-23 13:29:10, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 12:51:49PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 18-12-23 16:35:51, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Wrap up the iterator with a nice bit of syntactic sugar. Now the
> > > caller doesn't need to know about wbc->err and can just return error,
> > > not knowing that the iterator took care of storing errors correctly.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> >
> > Not sure if the trick with 'error' variable isn't a bit too clever for us
> > ;) We'll see how many bugs it will cause in the future...
>
> It's a bit too much syntactic sugar for my taste, but if we want a magic
> for macro I can't really see a good way around it. I personally wouldn't
Agreed. The macro is kind of neat but a magic like this tends to bite us in
surprising ways. E.g. if someone breaks out of the loop, things will go
really wrong (missing writeback_finish() call). That would be actually a
good usecase for the cleanup handlers PeterZ has been promoting - we could
make sure writeback_finish() is called whenever we exit the loop block.
> mind a version where the writeback_get_folio moves out of
> writeback_iter_init and the pattern would look more like:
>
> writeback_iter_init(mapping, wbc);
> while ((folio = writeback_iter_next(mapping, wbc, folio))) {
> wbc->err = <do something>
> }
>
> return wbc->err;
That would work for me as well. But I don't feel to strongly about this
either way.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
