From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com [209.85.220.43]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2029A6B0035 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hz1so1516658pad.16 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id lj1so1548322pab.22 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:17:02 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/readahead.c: need always return 0 when system call readahead() succeeds In-Reply-To: <525F35F7.4070202@asianux.com> Message-ID: References: <5212E328.40804@asianux.com> <20130820161639.69ffa65b40c5cf761bbb727c@linux-foundation.org> <521428D0.2020708@asianux.com> <20130917155644.cc988e7e929fee10e9c86d86@linux-foundation.org> <52390907.7050101@asianux.com> <525CF787.6050107@asianux.com> <525F35F7.4070202@asianux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Chen Gang Cc: Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Mel Gorman , sasha.levin@oracle.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Wu Fengguang , lczerner@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org On Thu, 17 Oct 2013, Chen Gang wrote: > If possible, you can help me check all my patches again (at least, it is > not a bad idea to me). ;-) > I think your patches should be acked before being merged into linux-next, Hugh just had to revert another one that did affect Linus's tree in 1ecfd533f4c5 ("mm/mremap.c: call pud_free() after fail calling pmd_alloc()"). I had to revert your entire series of mpol_to_str() changes in -mm. It's getting ridiculous and a waste of other people's time. > > Nack to this and nack to the problem patch, which is absolutely pointless > > and did nothing but introduce this error. readahead() is supposed to > > return 0, -EINVAL, or -EBADF and your original patch broke it. That's > > because your original patch was completely pointless to begin with. > > > > Do you mean: in do_readahead(), we need not check the return value of > force_page_cache_readahead()? > I'm saying we should revert mm-readaheadc-return-the-value-which-force_page_cache_readahead-returns.patch which violates the API of a syscall. I see that patch has since been removed from -mm, so I'm happy with the result. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org