From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx176.postini.com [74.125.245.176]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 487496B0209 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f178.google.com with SMTP id o10so1721360eaj.23 for ; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 08:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51603877.7070904@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:00:07 +0200 From: Marco Stornelli MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] fsfreeze: manage kill signal when sb_start_pagefault is called References: <515FF380.5020406@gmail.com> <20130406132028.GD28744@parisc-linux.org> In-Reply-To: <20130406132028.GD28744@parisc-linux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason , Alexander Viro , Theodore Ts'o , Andreas Dilger , Jaegeuk Kim , Steven Whitehouse , KONISHI Ryusuke , Mark Fasheh , Joel Becker , Mike Snitzer , Alasdair G Kergon , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jan Kara Il 06/04/2013 15:20, Matthew Wilcox ha scritto: > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:05:52PM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote: >> In every place where sb_start_pagefault was called now we must manage >> the error code and return VM_FAULT_RETRY. > > Erm ... in patch 1/4: > > static inline void sb_start_pagefault(struct super_block *sb) > { > - __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT, true); > + __sb_start_write_wait(sb, SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT, false); > } > >> >> - sb_start_pagefault(inode->i_sb); >> + ret = sb_start_pagefault(inode->i_sb); >> + if (ret) >> + return VM_FAULT_RETRY; >> ret = btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space(inode, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE); > > Does the compiler not warn that you're assigning void to 'ret'? Or was > there some other SNAFU sending these patches? > I'm sorry, my fault :) As I said in 00 these patches are completely *not* tested, it was only a "quick coding & review" to understand if someone can see any problem to this kind of implementation, since I touched several points in the kernel. So there is still on-going work and I need to do several tests. Maybe I had to add the RFC tag, sorry again. Marco -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org