From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:55759 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755367AbdIHHhS (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2017 03:37:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 00:37:17 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: report zeroed or not correctly in xfs_zero_range() Message-ID: <20170908073717.GB26110@infradead.org> References: <20170907034254.7180-1-eguan@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170907034254.7180-1-eguan@redhat.com> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Eryu Guan Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 11:42:53AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > The 'did_zero' param of xfs_zero_range() was not passed to > iomap_zero_range() correctly. This was introduced by commit > 7bb41db3ea16 ("xfs: handle 64-bit length in xfs_iozero"), and found > by code inspection. Looks good. Although this makes me wonder why we pass the argument at all, given that it doesn't seem to matter :) Joking aside: xfs_setattr_size seems to care to write out the buffer cache zeroed byes, so this looks good to me: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig