From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 12:05:57 +0200
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 09/11] fs: factor out a
 direct_write_fallback helper
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpeguT-LjhS-XrZwMystZqkxyB=HaON1zo-BTNOC0L1zCa1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20230524063810.1595778-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20230524063810.1595778-10-hch@lst.de>
 <CAJfpeguT-LjhS-XrZwMystZqkxyB=HaON1zo-BTNOC0L1zCa1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20230525100557.GA30242@lst.de>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 09:00:36AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > +ssize_t direct_write_fallback(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
> > +               ssize_t direct_written, ssize_t buffered_written)
> > +{
> > +       struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
> > +       loff_t pos = iocb->ki_pos - buffered_written;
> > +       loff_t end = iocb->ki_pos - 1;
> > +       int err;
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * If the buffered write fallback returned an error, we want to return
> > +        * the number of bytes which were written by direct I/O, or the error
> > +        * code if that was zero.
> > +        *
> > +        * Note that this differs from normal direct-io semantics, which will
> > +        * return -EFOO even if some bytes were written.
> > +        */
> > +       if (unlikely(buffered_written < 0))
> > +               return buffered_written;
> 
> Comment/code mismatch.   The comment says:
> 
> if (buffered_written < 0)
>         return direct_written ?: buffered_written;

Yeah.  And the old code matches the comment, so I'll update to that.
I'm really wondering how I could come up with a good test case for
this..