On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:13:57AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > This doesn't affect any existing user as they all get a zeroed iomap
> > passed from the caller in iomap.c. It affects the writeback code
> > once it uses struct iomap as it overwrites a previously used iomap.
>
> Then shouldn't
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:07:01PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:57:07AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:52:45AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Currently we don't overwrite the flags field in the iomap in
> > > xfs_bmbt_to_iomap. T
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:57:07AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:52:45AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Currently we don't overwrite the flags field in the iomap in
> > xfs_bmbt_to_iomap. This works fine with 0-initialized iomaps on stack,
> > but is harmful once
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:52:45AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Currently we don't overwrite the flags field in the iomap in
> xfs_bmbt_to_iomap. This works fine with 0-initialized iomaps on stack,
> but is harmful once we want to be able to reuse an iomap in the
> writeback code.
Is that go
Currently we don't overwrite the flags field in the iomap in
xfs_bmbt_to_iomap. This works fine with 0-initialized iomaps on stack,
but is harmful once we want to be able to reuse an iomap in the
writeback code. Replace the shared paramter with a set of initial
flags an thus ensures the flags fie
5 matches
Mail list logo
