On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 15:55 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Hi Trond-
>
> On Apr 19, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > fs/nfs/direct.c | 10 ++++++----
> > fs/nfs/read.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
> > fs/nfs/write.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/direct.c b/fs/nfs/direct.c
> > index abf8e02..4757a2b 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/direct.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/direct.c
> > @@ -347,8 +347,9 @@ static ssize_t
> > nfs_direct_read_schedule_segment(struct nfs_direct_req *dreq,
> > NFS_PROTO(inode)->read_setup(data, &msg);
> >
> > task = rpc_run_task(&task_setup_data);
> > - if (!IS_ERR(task))
> > - rpc_put_task(task);
> > + if (IS_ERR(task))
> > + break;
> > + rpc_put_task(task);
> >
> > dprintk("NFS: %5u initiated direct read call "
> > "(req %s/%Ld, %zu bytes @ offset %Lu)\n",
>
> My reading of this logic suggests that if the very first
> rpc_run_task() call in the loop fails, we'll return -EFAULT instead of
> something sensible, like -ENOMEM.
I'm confused. How could ENOMEM be a sensible substitute for EFAULT?
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
