diff for duplicates of <20130720214043.GC5636@mwanda> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 805722f..4f98e62 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 01:10:23PM +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > --- a/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c > > +++ b/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c > > @@ -346,7 +346,8 @@ static void nilfs_end_bio_write(struct bio *bio, int err) -> > if (err = -EOPNOTSUPP) { +> > if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) { > > set_bit(BIO_EOPNOTSUPP, &bio->bi_flags); > > bio_put(bio); > > - /* to be detected by submit_seg_bio() */ @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 01:10:23PM +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > I think that simple return from the function is not right way. As I understand the code, > then we increment error count in segbuf's sb_err field and signalize about completion of > operation. So, from my viewpoint, it needs to remove the bio_put() call for the case of -> (err = -EOPNOTSUPP) instead of return from function. +> (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) instead of return from function. > Do you think you could send that patch and give me a reported-by diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 47c53f3..41e2d79 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -1,8 +1,12 @@ "ref\020130719092603.GB22147@longonot.mountain\0" + "ref\08D04BC36-EF1A-4ED9-86CC-50F17A0EAA11@dubeyko.com\0" "From\0Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>\0" "Subject\0Re: [RFC] nilfs2: double bio_put() in nilfs_end_bio_write()\0" - "Date\0Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:40:43 +0000\0" - "To\0kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org\0" + "Date\0Sun, 21 Jul 2013 00:40:43 +0300\0" + "To\0Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com>\0" + "Cc\0KONISHI Ryusuke <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>" + linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org + " kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 01:10:23PM +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote:\n" @@ -11,7 +15,7 @@ "> > --- a/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c\n" "> > +++ b/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c\n" "> > @@ -346,7 +346,8 @@ static void nilfs_end_bio_write(struct bio *bio, int err)\n" - "> > \tif (err = -EOPNOTSUPP) {\n" + "> > \tif (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {\n" "> > \t\tset_bit(BIO_EOPNOTSUPP, &bio->bi_flags);\n" "> > \t\tbio_put(bio);\n" "> > -\t\t/* to be detected by submit_seg_bio() */\n" @@ -21,7 +25,7 @@ "> I think that simple return from the function is not right way. As I understand the code,\n" "> then we increment error count in segbuf's sb_err field and signalize about completion of\n" "> operation. So, from my viewpoint, it needs to remove the bio_put() call for the case of\n" - "> (err = -EOPNOTSUPP) instead of return from function.\n" + "> (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) instead of return from function.\n" "> \n" "\n" "Do you think you could send that patch and give me a reported-by\n" @@ -31,4 +35,4 @@ "regards,\n" dan carpenter -83cd60f56b8823a965a2cad3a3d3cb5c1aa34af9d04d1ff94308ef9661f61752 +1d8e9250ffad3c757d7c478e3f17b58b7f34f61548ad01a88b01d212d3843e59
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.