| To: | Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling of write_super_lockfs/unlockfs |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:59:56 -0400 |
| Cc: | Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx" <dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "axboe@xxxxxxxxx" <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, "mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20080922195526t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> |
| References: | <20080922195526t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:55:26PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote: > I've changed the type of write_super_lockfs and unlockfs from "void" to > "int" so that they can return an error. Returning an error from the freeze operation makes sense, but for the unfreeze I don't see the point. You must however change all existing instances to actually return a value (even if it's always 0 for now) to avoid breaking git bisect. If you touch all instances anyway, it would be nice to rename them to freeze / unfreze as the current names are more confusing. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH 10/10] Add timeout feature, Takashi Sato |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 0/6] btree cleanups V2, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling of write_super_lockfs/unlockfs, Takashi Sato |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling ofwrite_super_lockfs/unlockfs, Takashi Sato |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |