On 5/4/18 5:29 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> Subject: [PATCH 6/5] xfs: make several functions void > > Usual patch cramming practice is to make this a reply to the cover > letter, not 5/5. Yup I noticed that when it hit my inbox, my bad. > Also, "make several functions return void"? sure. "making them void" could be interpreted as vulgar. ;) ... >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c >> index 2135b8e67dcc..73f2c1ae2dcf 100644 >> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c >> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c >> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ >> */ >> STATIC int xfs_attr3_leaf_create(struct xfs_da_args *args, >> xfs_dablk_t which_block, struct xfs_buf **bpp); >> -STATIC int xfs_attr3_leaf_add_work(struct xfs_buf *leaf_buffer, >> +STATIC void xfs_attr3_leaf_add_work(struct xfs_buf *leaf_buffer, > > /me hates to be a PITA, but some of these functions ASSERT on on-disk > metadata checks that fail. Sometimes the checks are for things that are > already caught by the verifiers & so therefore ensure we haven't > corrupted in-core state, but others could very well be things that > should be turned into -EFSCORRUPTED return. > > How about splitting these up and only do a few functions (or a single > file) at a time? (And ideally after I land the series that starts the > conversion of ASSERT-on-disk-corruption to EFSCORRUPTED-return that's > also out for review...) Sure, fine by me, or maybe I'll just hit all the bog-simple ones and leave the rest, for now. Thanks, -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
