Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/10] jfs: Fix error handling in write_super_lockfs/unlockfs | From | Dave Kleikamp <> | Date | Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:05:29 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 19:57 +0900, Takashi Sato wrote: > I've changed write_super_lockfs/unlockfs so that they always return > 0 (success) to keep a current behavior.
Address Christoph's concerns, and you can add my ack. The bits that change the return code need to be a single patch.
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <t-sato@yk.jp.nec.com> > Signed-off-by: Masayuki Hamaguchi <m-hamaguchi@ys.jp.nec.com> Acked-by: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> -static void jfs_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb) > +static int jfs_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb) > { > struct jfs_sb_info *sbi = JFS_SBI(sb); > struct jfs_log *log = sbi->log; > @@ -553,9 +553,10 @@ static void jfs_write_super_lockfs(struc > lmLogShutdown(log); > updateSuper(sb, FM_CLEAN); > } > + return 0;
Alright. Nothing should fail here, and if it does, we're screwed anyway.
> -static void jfs_unlockfs(struct super_block *sb) > +static int jfs_unlockfs(struct super_block *sb) > { > struct jfs_sb_info *sbi = JFS_SBI(sb); > struct jfs_log *log = sbi->log; > @@ -568,6 +569,7 @@ static void jfs_unlockfs(struct super_bl > else > txResume(sb); > } > + return 0;
jfs_unlockfs() could return non-zero in the case where lmLogInit() fails. I'm not sure what good that does though. There isn't much the caller can do when an unfreeze fails.
Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center
| |