From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A36D937A85E for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790598468; cv=none; b=fhAkxF57AMb1To+bssTQo/to+FggL8B8iPCgXOzLuKzKYMHCRkeBkALi7zkjwjEZp+ATZS/jrGKiYDQF5/nOyiuykA+SUbpwZgs8+Ze7Su5p4R+0WzhiWNnClC9RCzzwhz7+kjhQdw3IT0jJr3JSfp/78ZJxhhmiVosjEJPbyPI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790598468; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j/DsYTyGVTERhxpb64kUBAotDJXonFVxZHNAvUynTxg=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=lvf12ysXMQXyZ5zqJF57TtfVzHTp1JyISXi/TzhIjFp/qKsDXHQRgsKNtZMspI0+3C0VG1DYJwpPoCmWw03sYG5hvzXf3a+aX3B9/lm/UCLvH+ythJQjEH5EDs2X1KOF/UL9ERi6j78q3NAD/w74lI+MlYUeZQi9q1u8vbrntA8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Re0F6Djc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Re0F6Djc" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1600D1F000FF; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:27:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790598467; bh=j/DsYTyGVTERhxpb64kUBAotDJXonFVxZHNAvUynTxg=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=Re0F6DjcG1G85AHCtHYO5kx8eE+psgjUs9m8KsDg5aCHwVgdSQb+Ql5aKiXp0FAnJ MwThvIXaYOMorrXPu/CfzpLHi67U1qFy3SAViqwj7y/xgipWkSwkNaUOZefHLsLXb3 /wOG6DjF3Rjz/IPzZm+KLYU23XbDE4atmc1qkMAcjNBaLNcF70r7IgKNFWokaNTBbn CgbQxhif3ZDJl+zoHV56d3XWyqkqPsBq4q4K1hr9NeRaXMtlJeBy7Ne+fJOrSBf/VG FV4QIuPEi2R127PJIpsOdtVrthDC7OMNsMZ8fCg8IDJPdnm7Jm4gYVqwV2p5TW0ZPf PkwLYWlMBiYOw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm/truncate: clarify return value of truncate_inode_partial_folio() Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Zhang Yi" Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu In-Reply-To: <20260928120833.3440834-5-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com> References: <20260928120833.3440834-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com> <20260928120833.3440834-5-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:27:46 +0000 Message-Id: <20260928122747.1600D1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > From: Zhang Yi >=20 > With the earlier rework the callers no longer rely on the return value > of truncate_inode_partial_folio() to decide whether to adjust the > truncation range. The pstart/pend out-parameters carry that information > instead. The callers now only use the return value as a flag indicating > whether the loop should be reset to pick up newly split sub-folios on > the shmem path. >=20 > Return true if at least one split succeeded, and false otherwise. > This clarifies the existing confusing return value semantics. >=20 > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster > Acked-by: Zi Yan > Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260928120833.3440= 834-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com?part=3D4