RE: [PATCH] fs/ceph/io: make ceph_start_io_*() killable

[Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com>]

On Fri, 2025-06-06 at 19:34 +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 7:15 PM Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com> wrote:
> > I see the point. Our last discussion has finished with statement that Max
> > doesn't care about this patch set and we don't need to pick it up. If he changed
> > his mind, then I can return to the review of the patch. :) My understanding was
> > that he prefers another person for the review. :) This is why I keep silence.
> 
> I do care, always did. I answered your questions, but they were not
> really about my patch but about whether error handling is necessary.
> Well, yes, of course! The whole point of my patch is to add an error
> condition that did not exist before. If locking can fail, of course
> you have to check that and propagate the error to the caller (and
> unlocking after a failed lock of course leads to sorrow). That is so
> trivial, I don't even know where to start to explain this if that
> isn't already obvious enough.
> 
> If you keep questioning that, are you really qualified to do a code review?
> 

OK. If I am not good enough, then somebody else can do the review. :)

Thanks,
Slava.