From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753887AbdCHS3u (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:29:50 -0500 Received: from hqemgate14.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.143]:5952 "EHLO hqemgate14.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751460AbdCHS3t (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:29:49 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:28:02 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: drop "wait" parameter from write_one_page To: Jeff Layton , References: <20170305132313.5840-1-jlayton@redhat.com> <1488972605.2802.3.camel@redhat.com> CC: , , Andrew Morton X-Nvconfidentiality: public From: John Hubbard Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:27:30 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1488972605.2802.3.camel@redhat.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.2.166.22] X-ClientProxiedBy: DRHQMAIL103.nvidia.com (10.27.9.12) To HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/08/2017 03:30 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: [...] > Thanks for having a look. That blurb in the changelog refers to the > kerneldoc comment over write_one_page below... > >> >> No existing caller uses this on normal files, so >>> none of them need it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton [...] >>> >>> /** >>> - * write_one_page - write out a single page and optionally wait on I/O >>> + * write_one_page - write out a single page and wait on I/O >>> * @page: the page to write >>> - * @wait: if true, wait on writeout >>> * >>> * The page must be locked by the caller and will be unlocked upon return. >>> * >>> - * write_one_page() returns a negative error code if I/O failed. >>> + * write_one_page() returns a negative error code if I/O failed. Note that >>> + * the address_space is not marked for error. The caller must do this if >>> + * needed. > > ...specifically the single sentence in the comment above. > > As I said, none of the existing callers need to set an error in the > mapping when this fails, so I just added this to make it clear for any > new callers in the future. Yes, somehow, even in this tiny patchset, I missed those two new comment lines. arghh. :) Well, everything looks great, then. thanks, John Hubbard NVIDIA