On 10/18, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/18 2:17, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 10/17, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2017/10/17 7:04, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 10/16, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2017/10/13 7:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> This patch returns an error number to quota_write in order for quota to
> >>>>> handle
> >>>>> it correctly.
> >>>>
> >>>> We should return error number like __generic_file_write_iter, right? it
> >>>> needs to return written bytes if we have written one page or more,
> >>>> otherwise
> >>>> return error number feedbacked from write_begin.
> >>>>
> >>>> So how about reverting 4f31d26b0c17 ("f2fs: return wrong error number on
> >>>> f2fs_quota_write")?
> >>>
> >>> I thought like that, but realized the code change is somewhat different
> >>> between
> >>> them.
> >>
> >> Hmm... main structure of codes here is copied from other file systems, is
> >> there
> >> the same problem in *_quota_write of other file systems?
> >>
> >> BTW, it looks making below judgment condition being useless.
> >>
> >> if (len == towrite)
> >> return 0;
> >
> > We need this to avoid needless inode updates. :P
>
> For err = 0 and len == towrite case, it more likes a bug of quota that passing
> 0 in @len.
>
> :(, Oh, still didn't get that why there is difference in between reverting and
> this fixing. Can you please explain more about this?
Ah, right. Let me just revert the original patch. :)
Thanks,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
