| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 6/10] gfs2: Fix error handling in write_super_lockfs/unlockfs, steve |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Loan offer with attractive and low interest rate....Apply now !!!, NOKIA |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling of write_super_lockfs/unlockfs, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling of write_super_lockfs/unlockfs, Takashi Sato |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |