[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3717EAB2B3F742ACBE4FFEC94B98BEB5@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:52:09 +0900
From: "Takashi Sato" <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
<viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
<xfs@....sgi.com>, <axboe@...nel.dk>,
<mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling ofwrite_super_lockfs/unlockfs
Hi,
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:55:26PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
>> I've changed the type of write_super_lockfs and unlockfs from "void" to
>> "int" so that they can return an error.
>
> Returning an error from the freeze operation makes sense, but for the
> unfreeze I don't see the point. You must however change all existing
> instances to actually return a value (even if it's always 0 for now)
> to avoid breaking git bisect.
I thought unlockfs should return an error because ext3_unlockfs()
might cause I/O error in writing a super block.
But it is an internal error and the unfreezing succeeds.
So I will consider returning 0.
> If you touch all instances anyway, it would be nice to rename them
> to freeze / unfreze as the current names are more confusing.
I will consider renaming.
Cheers, Takashi
--
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