[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: Fix wrong return value of xfs_file_aio_write

To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Fix wrong return value of xfs_file_aio_write
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:57:52 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jack@xxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110724115420.GA1626@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1309370716-12235-1-git-send-email-josef@xxxxxxxxxx> <20110723180942.GA1616@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4E2B2E88.8080006@xxxxxxxxxx> <20110723203824.GB1652@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110723220212.GA1648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110724111625.GA12658@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110724115420.GA1626@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 01:54:20PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2011.07.24 at 07:16 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:02:12AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > The following patch fixes the problem for me:
> > 
> > Good catch, can you send it with a proper signoff and description?
> The fsync prototype change commit 02c24a82187d accidentally overwrote
> the ssize_t return value of xfs_file_aio_write with 0 for SYNC type
> writes. Fix this by checking if an error occured when calling
> xfs_file_fsync and only change the return value in this case.
> In addition xfs_file_fsync actually returns a normal negative error, so
> fix this, too.
> ---
>  fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c |    5 ++++-
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

The Signed-off-by: line is still missing, and you normally shouldn't
quote the previous mail you reply to for patches.  Sorry for beeing
nit-picky, but see this as a training exercise :)

You can also add:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Tested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>

as I've run this through xfsqa (strictly speaking it's still running,
but it looks good so far)

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