[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090831151045.GA23901@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:10:45 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Valerie Aurora <vaurora@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm] vfs: optimize touch_time too fix
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:03:02PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Recent mmotms give me WARNING: at fs/namespace.c:612 mntput_no_expire()+...
> when unmounting: __mntput()'s WARN_ON(count_mnt_writers(mnt)).
>
> That's because vfs-optimize-touch_time-too.patch inverted the sense
> of mnt_want_write_file(), which is error-returning, not a boolean.
>
> Presumably filetime updates went missing too, but I didn't notice those.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
> ---
>
> fs/inode.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- mmotm/fs/inode.c 2009-08-28 10:07:56.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/fs/inode.c 2009-08-31 14:08:24.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1481,7 +1481,7 @@ void file_update_time(struct file *file)
> return;
>
> /* Finally allowed to write? Takes lock. */
> - if (!mnt_want_write_file(file))
> + if (mnt_want_write_file(file))
Eeek. having an error return from a function called want_foo is rather
strange. It's a name the implies a bolean return value.
--
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