On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:05:52PM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote: > In every place where sb_start_pagefault was called now we must manage > the error code and return VM_FAULT_RETRY. Erm ... in patch 1/4: static inline void sb_start_pagefault(struct super_block *sb) { - __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT, true); + __sb_start_write_wait(sb, SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT, false); } > > - sb_start_pagefault(inode->i_sb); > + ret = sb_start_pagefault(inode->i_sb); > + if (ret) > + return VM_FAULT_RETRY; > ret = btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space(inode, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE); Does the compiler not warn that you're assigning void to 'ret'? Or was there some other SNAFU sending these patches? -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- 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