From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (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 BEE2518641 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 06:07:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736230023; cv=none; b=lmgTWC3MJZW/vmWldWXG7zUAhoxWabFesZ6zmQ/1Hw6tDXCKv3Ay+wwyO8R1arwW86dXZuRuCuh37HV/b1dpYrTw6uKEddIYRpMYXUkMuzoY6bL7ypvbIRKZ+G7bjEA0dw/QoIc6S1khQVhd8c6WMb67F9ezd+L5gR9tbv7B/eU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736230023; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FfUe8CeNMCbT4taIRO5IuVA2THHlLIKnK5ruPKUsUeo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=JGOV/xUxEpzYOBlIr5QiiHFFH0ou36vNSl51mn2RgMvUvWK4hP5IEcef3aLfF+arPb6BmIkLdwWnyPdY+UomKqkKAlCP7a+GcXOPtw9QuwRJedT7Q7YoKev9tMfZ2J7IpM7gleLdnr4uyPrw2dceYpOqM2gARTs/KW7qgw0MFSY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 523B067373; Tue, 7 Jan 2025 07:06:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 07:06:57 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Carlos Maiolino , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] xfs: simplify xfs_buf_delwri_pushbuf Message-ID: <20250107060656.GC13669@lst.de> References: <20250106095613.847700-1-hch@lst.de> <20250106095613.847700-6-hch@lst.de> <20250107020810.GW6174@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250107020810.GW6174@frogsfrogsfrogs> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 06:08:10PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > - * after I/O completion, reuse the original list as the wait list. > > - */ > > - xfs_buf_delwri_submit_buffers(&submit_list, buffer_list); > > + bp->b_flags &= ~(_XBF_DELWRI_Q | XBF_ASYNC); > > + bp->b_flags |= XBF_WRITE; > > + xfs_buf_submit(bp); > > Why is it ok to ignore the return value here? Is it because the only > error path in xfs_buf_submit is the xlog_is_shutdown case, in which case > the buffer ioend will have been called already and the EIO will be > returned by xfs_buf_iowait? A very good question to be asked to the author of the original xfs_buf_delwri_submit_buffers code that this go extracted from :) I think you're provided answer is correct and also implies that we should either get rid of the xfs_buf_submit return value or check it more consistently.