[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D90167F.5080308@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:02:55 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric B Munson <emunson@...bm.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [Patch] proc: check error pointer returned by m_start()
于 2011年03月28日 11:58, Linus Torvalds 写道:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Amerigo Wang<amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is true, that commit changed the return value of m_start(),
>> which will return an error pointer on failure, but Al forgot
>> to check the error pointer in m_stop() which will be called
>> when m_start() fails. This patches fixes it.
>
> I did this slightly differently, and put the check in m_stop()
> instead, because I felt that matched the logic of m_start, while
> vma_stop() is more of an internal helper thing.
>
Ok, I am fine with this, will send an updated patch.
> I dunno. I don't think it matters. But one thing I reacted to was that
> when I was walking through the logic, I really wanted to say "seq_file
> is wrong to call m_stop if m_start returned an error code". I really
> felt like "hwy, if ->start fails, we damn well shouldn't have called
> ->stop".
This is a good point and makes prefect sense.
>
> But I guess we're stuck with that particular semantic for seq_files by now.
>
Yup, I guess there are some seq_file users still rely on this behavior,
we can fix them all later.
Thanks.
--
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