Re: [PATCH] xfs: lobotomise xfs_trans_read_buf_map()

[Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>]

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.
--Mark.