Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+2\/4\]\s+fsfreeze\:\s+manage\s+kill\s+signal\s+when\s+sb_start_write\s+is\s+called\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH 2/4] fsfreeze: manage kill signal when sb_start_write is called (score: 1)
Author: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:04:52 +0200
In every place where sb_start_write was called now we must manage the error code and return -EINTR. Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx> -- fs/btrfs/file.c | 9 +++++++-- fs/cifs
/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00122.html (19,194 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH 2/4] fsfreeze: manage kill signal when sb_start_write is called (score: 1)
Author: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 07:17:03 -0600
If we must manage the error code, then these functions should be marked __must_check. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in sellin
/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00123.html (10,213 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH 2/4] fsfreeze: manage kill signal when sb_start_write is called (score: 1)
Author: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 16:56:25 +0200
Il 06/04/2013 15:17, Matthew Wilcox ha scritto: On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:04:52PM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote: In every place where sb_start_write was called now we must manage the error code and r
/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00124.html (10,896 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH 2/4] fsfreeze: manage kill signal when sb_start_write is called (score: 1)
Author: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:50:33 +0100
Now go and look for callers of mnt_want_write() ;-/ The really painful one is in do_last(), but kern_path_create() is not much better; mq_open() would be bad too, had it not been about something you
/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00125.html (10,296 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu