On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:08:49AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> We use the same buffer I/O failure simulation code in a few
> different places. It's not much code, but it's not necessarily
> self-explanatory. Factor it into a helper and document it in one
> place.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h | 1 +
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c | 22 +++-------------------
> fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 7 +------
> 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> index 9ec3eaf1c618..93942d8e35dd 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> @@ -1248,6 +1248,24 @@ xfs_buf_ioerror_alert(
> -bp->b_error);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * To simulate an I/O failure, the buffer must be locked and held with at least
Whitespace.
> + * three references. The LRU reference is dropped by the stale call. The buf
> + * item reference is dropped via ioend processing. The third reference is owned
> + * by the caller and is dropped on I/O completion if the buffer is XBF_ASYNC.
> + */
> +void
> +xfs_buf_iofail(
> + struct xfs_buf *bp,
> + int flags)
> +{
> + bp->b_flags |= flags;
> + bp->b_flags &= ~XBF_DONE;
> + xfs_buf_stale(bp);
> + xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EIO);
> + xfs_buf_ioend(bp);
> +}
This function is an IO completion function. Can we call it
xfs_buf_ioend_fail(), please, to indicate that it both fails and
completes the IO in progress?
Otherwise ok.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
