| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 10/11] xfs: check xfs_buf_read_uncached returns correctly |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 26 Sep 2014 03:21:48 -0700 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1411648461-29003-11-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1411648461-29003-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1411648461-29003-11-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:34:20PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > xfs_buf_read_uncached() has two failure modes. If can either return > NULL or bp->b_error != 0 depending on the type of failure, and not > all callers check for both. Fix it up. This changelog still seems to be for your previous version and needs an update now tha xfs_buf_read_uncached always returns the error directly. > - return NULL; > + return ENOMEM; Should be -ENOMEM these days, shouldn't it? > release_buf: > - xfs_buf_relse(bp); > + if (bp) > + xfs_buf_relse(bp); Shouldn't bp always be valid at this point? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 08/11] xfs: kill xfs_bioerror_relse, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 11/11] xfs: simplify xfs_zero_remaining_bytes, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 10/11] xfs: check xfs_buf_read_uncached returns correctly, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 10/11 v2] xfs: check xfs_buf_read_uncached returns correctly, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |