Il 06/04/2013 15:20, Matthew Wilcox ha scritto:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:05:52PM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
In every place where sb_start_pagefault was called now we must manage
the error code and return VM_FAULT_RETRY.
Erm ... in patch 1/4:
static inline void sb_start_pagefault(struct super_block *sb)
{
- __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT, true);
+ __sb_start_write_wait(sb, SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT, false);
}
- sb_start_pagefault(inode->i_sb);
+ ret = sb_start_pagefault(inode->i_sb);
+ if (ret)
+ return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
ret = btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space(inode, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
Does the compiler not warn that you're assigning void to 'ret'? Or was
there some other SNAFU sending these patches?
I'm sorry, my fault :) As I said in 00 these patches are completely
*not* tested, it was only a "quick coding & review" to understand if
someone can see any problem to this kind of implementation, since I
touched several points in the kernel. So there is still on-going work
and I need to do several tests. Maybe I had to add the RFC tag, sorry again.
Marco
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>