On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 09:45:18AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Can you fix the inconsistent return for the trylock case in a follow on > > patch? This difference doesn't look intentional to me, and I would > > be surprised if it's correctly handled in the callers. > > Ok, I'll do an audit and make this common in a follow up patch. Just > to confirm: > > if (!(flags & XBF_TRYLOCK)) > return -ENOMEM; > return -EAGAIN; > > is what you want to see, right? Yes. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
