From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 B298F231A26 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 07:12:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736752375; cv=none; b=US/56WeSq6mY9a/vbVA6zpRk/05OLa3iqcT4FNvrvBcToTr3GfC0SUXWQ+OkJcDGs8MKDeZL5125XpYBCQVBhUgXYRk64ydEXP8ArmBtuPSpdBR1NM6zjrm2yDWBXhzUvkQQB8l+yrClU4h9X+TGAZfMs87NODUmCaVevcEmDdQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736752375; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wLozaj4SlbOu8BnS6Fx0NJAAN0QAbuX9qBkio9GVFks=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=AEXcW9Dr/ol4oFa1JqIRMpwkMx9dGt4RD/aTwDMnW/r4Um59nasMmPmvP72EiwyyG4ChF/H97wWo6d0cqGlJE9Cd9PR+dxwJ5sxldarX70pMlkQLKsYQPk7TW9VQwzDTsXA75rw9zUbi8hKzcZrLkXviBYZn7UqUALKEEZq7tv0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=FR88nlRJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="FR88nlRJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18F0AC4CED6; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 07:12:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1736752374; bh=wLozaj4SlbOu8BnS6Fx0NJAAN0QAbuX9qBkio9GVFks=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=FR88nlRJ2DnVglx2RF+83KmdLnw/2WsOKAiroq5ikbN0DEPfg+Q6Gvd3N7IvDBU4h vhXpRYIShU5Z9GpOlc1qn3ux8ZN7nvcpnGhcmSC6TFDGgZ9CUoqu7HPINsJ7cmqc5M t7NDuHbiqVULU9Hpp7guP2pVyJE7RhNBG4oOv3uQTlkIC/RwLJUGtC0xeRDAlSTgY7 0xmpKIHrvTPlm7mAi0Zyblj4IhffXySRlYeG58ClYVwqhMwTEXHXbYiuGXeNXtuKPN U7JrjsIuIYk9KwuwebZobW7X8enK0fEeH09ZzsLp3JlCenweNWmENHNjWgFfEZw3gN /eMN9w3Db7oqg== Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 23:12:53 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Carlos Maiolino , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] xfs: simplify xfs_buf_delwri_pushbuf Message-ID: <20250113071253.GY1306365@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20250106095613.847700-1-hch@lst.de> <20250106095613.847700-6-hch@lst.de> <20250107020810.GW6174@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20250107060656.GC13669@lst.de> 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: <20250107060656.GC13669@lst.de> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 07:06:57AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" --D