|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>|
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]|