|To:||Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] xfs: lobotomise xfs_trans_read_buf_map()|
|From:||Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:09:50 -0600|
|Cc:||Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx|
|References:||<1417473290-17544-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141202165930.GA28571@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141202224518.GG18131@dastard> <20141203105122.GA3727@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0|
On 12/03/14 04:51, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 09:45:18AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:Can you fix the inconsistent return for the trylock case in a follow on patch? This difference doesn't look intentional to me, and I would be surprised if it's correctly handled in the callers.Ok, I'll do an audit and make this common in a follow up patch. Just to confirm: if (!(flags & XBF_TRYLOCK)) return -ENOMEM; return -EAGAIN; is what you want to see, right?Yes.
Even ENOMEM / EAGAIN could be wrong if _xfs_buf_find() was given an illegal block number - then it would be EFSCORRUPT.
I think we need to push the error message from _xfs_buf_find(). I played with it once and seemed to have lost it and can do it again if no one else has the time.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: move type conversion functions to xfs_dir.h, Christoph Hellwig|
|Next by Date:||Finanzierungsangebot, Franck Duois|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] xfs: lobotomise xfs_trans_read_buf_map(), Christoph Hellwig|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] xfs: lobotomise xfs_trans_read_buf_map(), Dave Chinner|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|