On 12/03/14 04:51, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
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.
Even ENOMEM / EAGAIN could be wrong if _xfs_buf_find() was given an
illegal block number - then it would be EFSCORRUPT.
I think we need to push the error message from _xfs_buf_find(). I played
with it once and seemed to have lost it and can do it again if no one
else has the time.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
