[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170424152335.GD9112@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:23:35 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, osd-dev@...n-osd.org,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
jack@...e.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, corbet@....net,
neilb@...e.de, clm@...com, tytso@....edu, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/20] fs: check for writeback errors after syncing
out buffers in generic_file_fsync
> out:
> inode_unlock(inode);
> - return ret;
> + err = filemap_check_errors(inode->i_mapping);
> + return ret ? : err;
Can you spell out the whole unary operation instead of this weird GCC
extension?
Otherwise looks fine:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists