On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 03:01:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 04:36:31AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> >
> > - merged = __bio_try_merge_page(wpc->ioend->io_bio, page, len, poff,
> > - &same_page);
> > if (iop)
> > atomic_add(len, &iop->write_bytes_pending);
> > -
> > - if (!merged) {
> > - if (bio_full(wpc->ioend->io_bio, len)) {
> > - wpc->ioend->io_bio =
> > - iomap_chain_bio(wpc->ioend->io_bio);
> > - }
> > - bio_add_page(wpc->ioend->io_bio, page, len, poff);
> > + if (!bio_add_folio(wpc->ioend->io_bio, folio, len, poff)) {
> > + wpc->ioend->io_bio = iomap_chain_bio(wpc->ioend->io_bio);
> > + bio_add_folio(wpc->ioend->io_bio, folio, len, poff);
>
> The paranoiac in me wonders if we ought to have some sort of error
> checking here just in case we encounter double failures?
Maybe? We didn't have it before, and it's just been allocated.
I'd defer to Christoph here.
> > - for (i = 0, file_offset = page_offset(page);
> > - i < (PAGE_SIZE >> inode->i_blkbits) && file_offset < end_offset;
> > - i++, file_offset += len) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < nblocks; i++, pos += len) {
> > + if (pos >= end_offset)
> > + break;
>
> Any particular reason this isn't:
>
> for (i = 0; i < nblocks && pos < end_offset; i++, pos += len) {
>
> ?
Just mild personal preference ... I don't even like having the pos +=
len in there. But you're maintainer, I'll shuffle that in.
> Everything from here on out looks decent to me.
Thanks!
