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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>