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

List:       linux-nilfs
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v4 14/27] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting
From:       Jan Kara <jack () suse ! cz>
Date:       2017-05-10 13:46:36
Message-ID: 20170510134636.GA3883 () quack2 ! suse ! cz
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed 10-05-17 08:19:50, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 09-05-17 11:49:17, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/file_table.c b/fs/file_table.c
> > > index 954d510b765a..d6138b6411ff 100644
> > > --- a/fs/file_table.c
> > > +++ b/fs/file_table.c
> > > @@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ struct file *alloc_file(const struct path *path, fmode_t mode,
> > >  	file->f_path = *path;
> > >  	file->f_inode = path->dentry->d_inode;
> > >  	file->f_mapping = path->dentry->d_inode->i_mapping;
> > > +	file->f_wb_err = filemap_sample_wb_error(file->f_mapping);
> > 
> > Why do you sample here when you also sample in do_dentry_open()? I didn't
> > find any alloc_file() callers that would possibly care about writeback
> > errors... 
> > 
> > 								Honza
> 
> I basically used the setting of f_mapping as a guideline as to where to
> sample it for initialization. My thinking was that if f_mapping ever
> ended up different then you'd probably also want f_wb_err to be
> resampled anyway.

OK, makes sense.

> I can drop this hunk if you think we don't need it.

I don't really care. I was just wondering whether I'm missing something...

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]