[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1222265129.19388.12.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:05:29 -0500
From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"viro@...IV.linux.org.uk" <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"xfs@....sgi.com" <xfs@....sgi.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"mtk.manpages@...glemail.com" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/10] jfs: Fix error handling in
write_super_lockfs/unlockfs
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 19:57 +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> I've changed write_super_lockfs/unlockfs so that they always return
> 0 (success) to keep a current behavior.
Address Christoph's concerns, and you can add my ack. The bits that
change the return code need to be a single patch.
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
> Signed-off-by: Masayuki Hamaguchi <m-hamaguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Acked-by: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> -static void jfs_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> +static int jfs_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> struct jfs_sb_info *sbi = JFS_SBI(sb);
> struct jfs_log *log = sbi->log;
> @@ -553,9 +553,10 @@ static void jfs_write_super_lockfs(struc
> lmLogShutdown(log);
> updateSuper(sb, FM_CLEAN);
> }
> + return 0;
Alright. Nothing should fail here, and if it does, we're screwed
anyway.
> -static void jfs_unlockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> +static int jfs_unlockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> struct jfs_sb_info *sbi = JFS_SBI(sb);
> struct jfs_log *log = sbi->log;
> @@ -568,6 +569,7 @@ static void jfs_unlockfs(struct super_bl
> else
> txResume(sb);
> }
> + return 0;
jfs_unlockfs() could return non-zero in the case where lmLogInit()
fails. I'm not sure what good that does though. There isn't much the
caller can do when an unfreeze fails.
Shaggy
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
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