On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:35:19PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
>
>
> On 02/13/2018 01:31 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 05:38:19PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> >> The function return values are confusing with the way the function is
> >> named. We expect a true or false return value but it actually returns
> >> 0/-errno. This makes the code very confusing. Changing the return values
> >> to return a bool where if DAX is supported then return true and no DAX
> >> support returns false.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >
> >> diff --git a/fs/ext2/super.c b/fs/ext2/super.c
> >> index 655699321c45..636b9c5e1bff 100644
> >> --- a/fs/ext2/super.c
> >> +++ b/fs/ext2/super.c
> >> @@ -958,9 +958,10 @@ static int ext2_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
> >> blocksize = BLOCK_SIZE << le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_log_block_size);
> >>
> >> if (sbi->s_mount_opt & EXT2_MOUNT_DAX) {
> >> - err = sb_dax_supported(sb, blocksize);
> >> - if (err)
> >> + if(!sb_dax_supported(sb, blocksize)) {
> >> + err = -EIO;
> >
> > No need to set 'err' here. This is just a temporary variable used for some
> > local checks later in the function. 'ret' is the value that will be returned,
> > and that is already initialized to -EINVAL which should be fine.
>
> Change ret to -EIO instead to set the correct error return code?
I'm not sure that -EIO is the 'correct' return code. The old
sb_dax_supported() code could have returned -EINVAL, -EOPNOTSUPP or -EIO,
based on what went wrong. All the other error cases in this function just
goto failed_mount without messing with 'ret', and we should probably do the
same.
