Hi,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:57:18PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> I've changed write_super_lockfs/unlockfs so that they always return
> 0 (success) to keep a current behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Masayuki Hamaguchi <m-hamaguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> ops_super.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c linux
> -2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-gfs2/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c
> --- linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c 2008-09-22 07:29:55.000000000 +0900
> +++ linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-gfs2/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c 2008-09-22 10:52:16.000000000 +0900
> @@ -166,13 +166,13 @@ static int gfs2_sync_fs(struct super_blo
> *
> */
>
> -static void gfs2_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> +static int gfs2_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = sb->s_fs_info;
> int error;
>
> if (test_bit(SDF_SHUTDOWN, &sdp->sd_flags))
> - return;
> + return 0;
>
Since this now returns a status, then this should indicate a failure
I think. Perhaps -EINVAL would be suitable?
Otherwise it looks good from a gfs2 perspective,
Steve.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
