On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:07:23PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Kirill A. Shutemov wrote on Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:33:53PM +0200: > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:56:07PM +0100, Dominique Martinet wrote: > > > If p9_client_lock_dotl returns an error, status is possibly never filled > > > but will be used in the following switch. > > > Initializing it to P9_LOCK_ERROR makes sur we will return an error and > > > cleanup (and not hit the default case). > > > > That's what my patch[1] fixes. > > > > http://marc.info/?i=1419858019-116944-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov%40linux.intel.com > > Actually, it's slightly different and still worth adding (mine if we > apply your's first and your's if we apply mine first - don't think > they'll conflict. I even reworded the (too old!) commit message to fit > with your patch :)) > > Your patch will not BUG() if status is junk, BUT if status uninitialized > value is 0 and p9_client_lock_dotl then we'll return res=0 (success) and > not unlock before returning. My patch makes sure we'll return -ENOLCK. No, if p9_client_lock_dotl() return 0 it must set status. If it's not, that's bug on p9_client_lock_dotl() side and must be fixed. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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
