On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > I'll propagate it through where it makes sense. If we alrady have an > error, then we aren't going to call xfs_setfilesize_trans_alloc() > anyway, so checking the return value only matters in the non-error > cases. Oh, I missed that we don't care about the failure case. Maybe we should just call xfs_setfilesize_trans_alloc instead, and just move the conditionals to it so that it's a no-op if no transaction is needed? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
