[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150109132051.GB24928@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:20:51 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@....fr>
Cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
Ron Minnich <rminnich@...dia.gov>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Initialize status in v9fs_file_do_lock.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:07:23PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Kirill A. Shutemov wrote on Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:33:53PM +0200:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:56:07PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > > If p9_client_lock_dotl returns an error, status is possibly never filled
> > > but will be used in the following switch.
> > > Initializing it to P9_LOCK_ERROR makes sur we will return an error and
> > > cleanup (and not hit the default case).
> >
> > That's what my patch[1] fixes.
> >
> > http://marc.info/?i=1419858019-116944-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov%40linux.intel.com
>
> Actually, it's slightly different and still worth adding (mine if we
> apply your's first and your's if we apply mine first - don't think
> they'll conflict. I even reworded the (too old!) commit message to fit
> with your patch :))
>
> Your patch will not BUG() if status is junk, BUT if status uninitialized
> value is 0 and p9_client_lock_dotl then we'll return res=0 (success) and
> not unlock before returning. My patch makes sure we'll return -ENOLCK.
No, if p9_client_lock_dotl() return 0 it must set status. If it's not,
that's bug on p9_client_lock_dotl() side and must be fixed.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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