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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Masayuki Hamaguchi <m-hamaguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> -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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
