On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:50:49PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 12:23 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > xfs_file_aio_write() only returns the error from synchronous > > flushing of the data and inode if error == 0. At the point where > > error is being checked, it is guaranteed to be > 0. Therefore any > > Actually, we have this above the affected code: > ... > error = -ret; > if (ret <= 0) > goto out_unlock_internal; > > So ret must be positive, therefore error is negative > (the negative of the number of bytes written). In > other words, we enter this block without having seen > an error. > > The return at the end of the function is: > return -error; > > And by the convoluted logic here, that means that the > value of error should be a negative byte count if > successful, or a positive errno otherwise. Oh, right, yeah, I screwed that up, didn't I? > And since filemap_write_and_wait_range() returns a > negative errno, your fix doesn't look right to me. I will fix it up. > The existing code is wrong and should be fixed, but a > better fix might make the meaning of the variable "error" > a little less weird. The real problem is that xfs functions return positive errors, and the linux functions return negative errors. It would be much less of a hassle if we fixed that problem... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
