On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 07:09:36AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 02:14:19PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of the "return 1 to loop again" behavior. > > Can you add a comment at the top stating that this is a possible return > > value and why it gets returned? > > Sure. If you have a better idea I'm all ears, too. I would have thought a -EBUSY error would have been appropriate. i.e. there was an extending write in progress (busy doing IO) so we couldn't perform the zeroing operation and hence the write needs to be restarted now the IO has been drained... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
