From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A16C433E0 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 04:53:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66531221E9 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 04:53:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726811AbgLZEvb (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Dec 2020 23:51:31 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41934 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726509AbgLZEvb (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Dec 2020 23:51:31 -0500 Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [IPv6:2002:c35c:fd02::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A6EC061757 for ; Fri, 25 Dec 2020 20:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kt1XP-004DJd-Ex; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 04:50:43 +0000 Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 04:50:43 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: make unlazy_walk() error handling consistent Message-ID: <20201226045043.GA3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20201217161911.743222-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20201217161911.743222-2-axboe@kernel.dk> <66d1d322-42d4-5a46-05fb-caab31d0d834@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <66d1d322-42d4-5a46-05fb-caab31d0d834@kernel.dk> Sender: Al Viro Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org 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.