Hi Ryusuke, On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Pekka Enberg pointed out that double error handlings found after > nilfs_transaction_end() can be avoided by separating abort operation: > > OK, I don't understand this. The only way nilfs_transaction_end() can > fail is if we have NILFS_TI_SYNC set and we fail to construct the > segment. But why do we want to construct a segment if we don't commit? > > I guess what I'm asking is why don't we have a separate > nilfs_transaction_abort() function that can't fail for the erroneous > case to avoid this double error value tracking thing? > > This does the separation and renames nilfs_transaction_end() to > nilfs_transaction_commit() for clarification. > > Since, some calls of these functions were used just for exclusion > control against the segment constructor, they are replaced with > semaphore operations. > > Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Nice cleanup! Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
