xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling ofwrite_super_lockfs/unlockfs
From: "Takashi Sato" <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:52:09 +0900
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>, <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20080922105956.GA16069@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20080922195526t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080922105956.GA16069@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,

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.

I thought unlockfs should return an error because ext3_unlockfs()
might cause I/O error in writing a super block.
But it is an internal error and the unfreezing succeeds.
So I will consider returning 0.

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

I will consider renaming.

Cheers, Takashi

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