On 10/21/21 9:18 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 10/21/21 8:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 08:34:38AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> Incremental, are you happy with that comment?
>>>
>>> Looks fine to me.
>>
>> OK good, can I add your ack/review? I can send out a v3 if needed, but
>> seems a bit pointless for that small change.
>>
>> Jeff, are you happy with this one too?
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
>> index 397bfafc4c25..66c6e0c5d638 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
>> @@ -550,7 +550,7 @@ static void lo_rw_aio_do_completion(struct loop_cmd *cmd)
>> blk_mq_complete_request(rq);
>> }
>>
>> -static void lo_rw_aio_complete(struct kiocb *iocb, long ret, long ret2)
>> +static void lo_rw_aio_complete(struct kiocb *iocb, u64 ret)
>> {
>> struct loop_cmd *cmd = container_of(iocb, struct loop_cmd, iocb);
>>
>> @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ static int lo_rw_aio(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_cmd *cmd,
>> lo_rw_aio_do_completion(cmd);
>>
>> if (ret != -EIOCBQUEUED)
>> - cmd->iocb.ki_complete(&cmd->iocb, ret, 0);
>> + lo_rw_aio_complete(&cmd->iocb, ret);
>> return 0;
>
> I'm not sure why that was part of this patch, but I think it's fine.
Yeah, just came across that one, I can drop this part and make it a
separate patch. Just a bit dumb to not use the function rather than the
indirect call, though maybe the compiler figures it out.
> I've still got more testing to do, but you can add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I'll follow up if there are issues.
Thanks!
--
Jens Axboe
