[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/3] direct-io: always call ->end_io if non-NULL

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 08:14:55AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:55:31AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > This will have the effect of a later error superseding an earlier error.  I'm
> > under the impression that code should generally preserve the first error, since
> > some side effect of that probably caused the rest of the errors.
> > 
> > That said, my guess is that 95% of the time err is set, retval and err will
> > both be -EIO anyway.  I'm not particularly passionate about whether or not we
> > preserve the first error code.
> 
> This leaves the option to the file system to pass the value through
> or not.  Note that ret before the call will usually have the positive
> number of bytes written, so checking if it's 'set' wouldn't be enough
> even if adding some special casing in the callers.

Ok, I can live with that.

> > > +static int ext4_end_io_dio(struct kiocb *iocb, loff_t offset,
> > >  			    ssize_t size, void *private)
> > >  {
> > >          ext4_io_end_t *io_end = iocb->private;
> > >  
> > > +	if (size <= 0)
> > > +		return 0;
> > 
> > This leaks the ext4_io_end_t, if there was one.  Granted, that only happens
> > during an AIO DIO to an unwritten extent, but in any case I suggest removing
> > this hunk and...
> 
> It's the same behavior as before - and if you look at ext4_ext_direct_IO
> it seems to expect this and works around it.

Gotcha.  That's right, so I'll stop worrying about these. :)

--D

> 
> > > +	if (bytes <= 0)
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +
> > 
> > I suspect we still need to unlock the mutexes later on in this function.
> > 
> > >  	/* this io's submitter should not have unlocked this before we could */
> > >  	BUG_ON(!ocfs2_iocb_is_rw_locked(iocb));
> > >  
> > > @@ -644,6 +647,8 @@ static void ocfs2_dio_end_io(struct kiocb *iocb,
> > >  		level = ocfs2_iocb_rw_locked_level(iocb);
> > >  		ocfs2_rw_unlock(inode, level);
> > >  	}
> > 
> > Do we need to still have an accurate value for bytes the conditional above
> > even if the IO errored out?  
> 
> Again, no changes to the old behavior.  ocfs has some magic stuffed
> in iocb->private to deal with the locked state of an iocb, and while
> I don't fully understand it I suspect it's to handle the existing
> odd ->end_io calling conventions.  Cleaning this up would be nice,
> but let's keep that a separate patch.
> 
> > >  	struct kiocb		*iocb,
> > >  	loff_t			offset,
> > > @@ -1655,15 +1655,19 @@ xfs_end_io_direct_write(
> > >  	struct inode		*inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
> > >  	struct xfs_ioend	*ioend = private;
> > >  
> > > +	if (size <= 0)
> > > +		return 0;
> > 
> > Same thing here, I think we can end up leaking the ioend.
> 
> This keeps the existing behavior.  But either way, at least for
> XFS all this will be properly fixed in the next patch anyway.