Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: make unlazy_walk() error handling consistent

[Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>]

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 07:41:17PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/17/20 9:19 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Most callers check for non-zero return, and assume it's -ECHILD (which
> > it always will be). One caller uses the actual error return. Clean this
> > up and make it fully consistent, by having unlazy_walk() return a bool
> > instead. Rename it to try_to_unlazy() and return true on success, and
> > failure on error. That's easier to read.
> 
> Al, were you planning on queuing this one up for 5.11 still? I'm fine
> with holding for 5.12 as well, would just like to know what your plans
> are. Latter goes for the whole series too, fwiw.

Seeing that it has not sat in -next at all, what I'm going to do is
to put it into 5.11-rc1-based branch.  It's really been too late for
something like that for this cycle and IME a topic branch started
before the merges for previous cycle are over is too likely to require
backmerges, if not outright rebases.  So let's branch it at -rc1 and
it'll go into #for-next from the very beginning.