[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:50:56 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
satyam@...radead.org, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com,
stern@...land.harvard.edu,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>, gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/25] sysfs: Rename Support multiple superblocks
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Welcome. I will see what I can do with respect to cleaning up
> the names.
>
> As for the return value of sysfs_get_dentry that is tricky. In particular
> I have three specific cases the code needs to deal with.
>
> - We got the dentry.
> - We did not get the dentry because for this super block there never
> ever will be a dentry.
> - Some kind of error occurred in attempting to get the dentry.
>
> Not getting a dentry because it is impossible I am currently handling
> with a NULL return. I can equally use a specific error code to mean
> that as well. It doesn't much matter. So I guess the hunk in
> question could read:
>
>>> + list_for_each_entry(sb, &sysfs_fs_type.fs_supers, s_instances) {
>>> + dentry = sysfs_get_dentry(sb, sd);
>>> + if (dentry == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT))
>>> + continue;
>
> As long as we handle that class of error differently I really don't
> care.
Yeah, I think using -ENOENT is better; otherwise, my little head feels
like exploding. :-) More importantly, sysfs_get_dentry() seems like it
would deference ERR_PTR() value. No?
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists