[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081027231533.96c42a78.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:15:33 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: 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>,
"mtk.manpages@...glemail.com" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Implement generic freeze feature
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:58:54 +0900 Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
> -void thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev, struct super_block *sb)
> +int thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev, struct super_block *sb)
> {
> + int error = 0;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
> + if (!bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count) {
> + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
> + return -EINVAL;
This would be a programming error, yes?
If so, a WARN_ON is more appropriate than a silent runtime error.
> + }
--
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