From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 23:22:31 -0800
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [RFC v3 2/7] iomap: Add iomap_folio_done helper
In-Reply-To: <CAHpGcMJAnyn_7hHvsPL5GAiwbJs_DX04+Tt0P+6jfi_kb7jGUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20221216150626.670312-1-agruenba@redhat.com>
 <20221216150626.670312-3-agruenba@redhat.com>
 <Y6XDAG25Qumt/iyM@infradead.org>
 <CAHpGcMJAnyn_7hHvsPL5GAiwbJs_DX04+Tt0P+6jfi_kb7jGUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Y6aot0pDtWl/c5Nb@infradead.org>
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 Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 09:54:34PM +0100, Andreas Gr?nbacher wrote:
> > But for the current version I don't really understand why the error
> > unwinding changes here.
> 
> Currently, we have this order of operations in iomap_write_begin():
> 
>   folio_unlock() // folio_put() // iomap_write_failed() // ->page_done()
> 
> and this order in iomap_write_end():
> 
>   folio_unlock() // ->page_done() // folio_put() // iomap_write_failed()
> 
> The unwinding in iomap_write_begin() works because this is the trivial
> case in which nothing happens to the page. We might just as well use
> the same order of operations there as in iomap_write_end() though, and
> when you switch to that, this is what you get.

Please document this in the commit message.