On 10/17/2013 07:06 AM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Chen Gang wrote: > >> diff --git a/mm/readahead.c b/mm/readahead.c >> index 1eee42b..83a202e 100644 >> --- a/mm/readahead.c >> +++ b/mm/readahead.c >> @@ -592,5 +592,5 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(readahead, int, fd, loff_t, offset, size_t, count) >> } >> fdput(f); >> } >> - return ret; >> + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; >> } > > This was broken by your own "mm/readahead.c: return the value which > force_page_cache_readahead() returns" patch in -mm, luckily Linus's tree > isn't affected. > Of cause it is. And every member knows about it: in my comments, already mentioned about it in a standard way. Hmm... isn't it enough? (it seems you don't think so) If possible, you can help me check all my patches again (at least, it is not a bad idea to me). ;-) > Nack to this and nack to the problem patch, which is absolutely pointless > and did nothing but introduce this error. readahead() is supposed to > return 0, -EINVAL, or -EBADF and your original patch broke it. That's > because your original patch was completely pointless to begin with. > > Do you mean: in do_readahead(), we need not check the return value of force_page_cache_readahead()? In my opinion, the system call of readahead() wants to notice whether force_page_cache_readahead() fails or not (may return -EINVAL), which is the mainly callee of readahead(). Don't you think so?? Thanks. -- Chen Gang -- 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>