Re: [PATCH 09/11] fs: factor out a direct_write_fallback helper

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 09:00:36AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > +ssize_t direct_write_fallback(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
> > +               ssize_t direct_written, ssize_t buffered_written)
> > +{
> > +       struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
> > +       loff_t pos = iocb->ki_pos - buffered_written;
> > +       loff_t end = iocb->ki_pos - 1;
> > +       int err;
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * If the buffered write fallback returned an error, we want to return
> > +        * the number of bytes which were written by direct I/O, or the error
> > +        * code if that was zero.
> > +        *
> > +        * Note that this differs from normal direct-io semantics, which will
> > +        * return -EFOO even if some bytes were written.
> > +        */
> > +       if (unlikely(buffered_written < 0))
> > +               return buffered_written;
> 
> Comment/code mismatch.   The comment says:
> 
> if (buffered_written < 0)
>         return direct_written ?: buffered_written;

Yeah.  And the old code matches the comment, so I'll update to that.
I'm really wondering how I could come up with a good test case for
this..




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux