xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 6/10] gfs2: Fix error handling in write_super_lockfs/unlockfs

To: Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/10] gfs2: Fix error handling in write_super_lockfs/unlockfs
From: steve@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:23:45 +0100
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: <20080922195718t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: ChyGwyn Limited
References: <20080922195718t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:57:18PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> I've changed write_super_lockfs/unlockfs so that they always return
> 0 (success) to keep a current behavior.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Masayuki Hamaguchi <m-hamaguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  ops_super.c |    8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/Documentation/dontdiff 
> linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c linux
> -2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-gfs2/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c
> --- linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c  2008-09-22 
> 07:29:55.000000000 +0900
> +++ linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-gfs2/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c  2008-09-22 
> 10:52:16.000000000 +0900
> @@ -166,13 +166,13 @@ static int gfs2_sync_fs(struct super_blo
>   *
>   */
>  
> -static void gfs2_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> +static int gfs2_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
>  {
>       struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = sb->s_fs_info;
>       int error;
>  
>       if (test_bit(SDF_SHUTDOWN, &sdp->sd_flags))
> -             return;
> +             return 0;
>
Since this now returns a status, then this should indicate a failure
I think. Perhaps -EINVAL would be suitable?

Otherwise it looks good from a gfs2 perspective,

Steve.

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