xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling of write_super_lockfs/unlockfs

To: Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling of write_super_lockfs/unlockfs
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:59:56 -0400
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx" <dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "axboe@xxxxxxxxx" <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, "mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20080922195526t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20080922195526t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:55:26PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> I've changed the type of write_super_lockfs and unlockfs from "void" to
> "int" so that they can return an error. 

Returning an error from the freeze operation makes sense, but for the
unfreeze I don't see the point.  You must however change all existing
instances to actually return a value (even if it's always 0 for now)
to avoid breaking git bisect.

If you touch all instances anyway, it would be nice to rename them
to freeze / unfreze as the current names are more confusing.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>