xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: Nuke XFS_ERROR macro

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: Nuke XFS_ERROR macro
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:38:57 +1000
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <534EC282.7010905@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <534EC073.8090006@xxxxxxxxxxx> <534EC282.7010905@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:48:50PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> XFS_ERROR was designed long ago to trap return values,
> but it's not runtime configurable, it's not consistently used,
> and we can do the same thing today with systemtap, using
> something like:
> 
> probe module("xfs").function("xfs_*").return { if (@defined($return) && 
> $return == VALUE) { ... } }
> 
> Just nuke XFS_ERROR and associated bits.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>

Eric, given the rebasing impact of this change on other pending
work, I think we should plan to merge this just prior to the next
upstream merge. Perhaps regenerate it against the for-next branch
a week before the merge window is likely to open, and then apply
it? That way we (well, I) don't have to spend a alrge proportion of
this merge window fixing up patch mismatches vs the master branch?

Is that an acceptible approach for everyone?

(Note: I'm assuming Christoph is OK with this given the ftrace
scripts we can use to replace this macro...)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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