On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 13:59 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:11:36PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > + if (IS_DAX(inode)) {
> > > + ret = dax_do_io(iocb, inode, iter, offset,
> > > blkdev_get_block,
> > > NULL, DIO_SKIP_DIO_COUNT);
> > > + if (ret == -EIO && (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE))
> > > + ret_saved = ret;
> > > + else
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + ret = __blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, I_BDEV(inode),
> > > iter, offset,
> > > blkdev_get_block, NULL,
> > > NULL,
> > > DIO_SKIP_DIO_COUNT);
> > > + if (ret < 0 && ret_saved)
> > > + return ret_saved;
> > > +
> > Hmm, did you just break async DIO? I think you did! :)
> > __blockdev_direct_IO can return -EIOCBQUEUED, and you've now turned
> > that
> > into -EIO. Really, I don't see a reason to save that first
> > -EIO. The
> > same applies to all instances in this patch.
> Yes, there is no point in saving the earlier error - just return the
> second error all the time.
Is it ok to do that?
direct_IO might fail with -EINVAL due to misalignment, or -ENOMEM due
to some allocation failing, and I thought we should return the original
-EIO in such cases so that the application doesn't lose the information
that the bad block is actually causing the error.
>
> E.g.
>
> ret = dax_io();
> if (dax_need_dio_retry(ret))
> ret = direct_IO();
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
