[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHb8M2DyVvNbvX3tQ0zKxhm07A=DWCax5RNt+Xp=dZK95RuL4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:36:39 +0900
From: DaeSeok Youn <daeseok.youn@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: mfasheh@...e.com, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
"ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com" <ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 V2] ocfs2: use retval instead of status for checking error
Hi,
How is this patch going on?
please check for me.
Thanks.
Daeseok Youn.
2015-03-03 10:38 GMT+09:00 DaeSeok Youn <daeseok.youn@...il.com>:
> Hi, all
>
> please, review this patch.
>
> thanks.
>
> regards,
> Daeseok Youn.
>
> 2015-03-02 18:04 GMT+09:00 Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>:
>> Am 28.02.2015 um 00:48 schrieb Daeseok Youn:
>>> The use of 'status' in __ocfs2_add_entry() can return wrong
>>> status when some functions are failed.
>>>
>>> If ocfs2_journal_access_db() in __ocfs2_add_entry() is failed,
>>> that status is saved to 'status' but return variable is 'retval'
>>> which is saved 'success' status. In case of this, __ocfs2_add_entry()
>>> is failed but can be returned as 'success'.
>>>
>>> So replace 'status' with 'retval'.
>>
>> As this patch is untested and the issue is theoretical I'm nervous.
>> But the final decision is up to ocfs2 maintainers.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> //richard
--
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