On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 01:10:23PM +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c b/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c
> > index dc9a913..a660fd7 100644
> > --- a/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c
> > +++ b/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c
> > @@ -346,7 +346,8 @@ static void nilfs_end_bio_write(struct bio *bio, int err)
> > if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
> > set_bit(BIO_EOPNOTSUPP, &bio->bi_flags);
> > bio_put(bio);
> > - /* to be detected by submit_seg_bio() */
> > + /* to be detected by nilfs_segbuf_submit_bio() */
> > + return;
>
> I think that simple return from the function is not right way. As I understand the code,
> then we increment error count in segbuf's sb_err field and signalize about completion of
> operation. So, from my viewpoint, it needs to remove the bio_put() call for the case of
> (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) instead of return from function.
>
Do you think you could send that patch and give me a reported-by
tag? I feel weird signing off on it when I don't really understand
this code...
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
