[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-ext4
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v8 16/18] ext4: use errseq_t based error handling for reporting data writeback errors
From:       Jeff Layton <jlayton () poochiereds ! net>
Date:       2017-06-29 20:26:12
Message-ID: 1498767972.5710.4.camel () poochiereds ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 07:12 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > -	if (unlikely(ext4_forced_shutdown(EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb))))
> > -		return -EIO;
> > +	if (unlikely(ext4_forced_shutdown(EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)))) {
> > +		ret = -EIO;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> 
> This just seems to add a call to trace_ext4_sync_file_exit for this
> case, which seems unrelated to the patch.
> 
> >  	if (ret)
> > -		return ret;
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> 
> Same here.
> 
> >  	/*
> >  	 * data=writeback,ordered:
> >  	 *  The caller's filemap_fdatawrite()/wait will sync the data.
> > @@ -152,7 +155,7 @@ int ext4_sync_file(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end, int datasync)
> >  		needs_barrier = true;
> >  	ret = jbd2_complete_transaction(journal, commit_tid);
> >  	if (needs_barrier) {
> > -	issue_flush:
> > +issue_flush:
> >  		err = blkdev_issue_flush(inode->i_sb->s_bdev, GFP_KERNEL, NULL);
> 
> And while I much prefer your new label placement it also doesn't
> seem to belong into this patch.

I revised the patch description earlier to say:

    While we're at it, ensure we always "goto out" instead of just
    returning directly, so that we always hit the exit tracepoint.

...but I'm fine with taking that out if you prefer.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]