On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 07:14:25AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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? OK, but let's make cleanups like this at the start of the next batch of work we are already working on for this code so this can be finalised and made available for wider testing.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
