From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/25] sysfs: Rename Support multiple superblocks Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:50:56 +0900 Message-ID: <46B9E660.6030702@gmail.com> References: <20070808093505.GL13674@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, satyam@infradead.org, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, Linux Containers , gregkh@suse.de List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Welcome. I will see what I can do with respect to cleaning up > the names. > > As for the return value of sysfs_get_dentry that is tricky. In particular > I have three specific cases the code needs to deal with. > > - We got the dentry. > - We did not get the dentry because for this super block there never > ever will be a dentry. > - Some kind of error occurred in attempting to get the dentry. > > Not getting a dentry because it is impossible I am currently handling > with a NULL return. I can equally use a specific error code to mean > that as well. It doesn't much matter. So I guess the hunk in > question could read: > >>> + list_for_each_entry(sb, &sysfs_fs_type.fs_supers, s_instances) { >>> + dentry = sysfs_get_dentry(sb, sd); >>> + if (dentry == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT)) >>> + continue; > > As long as we handle that class of error differently I really don't > care. Yeah, I think using -ENOENT is better; otherwise, my little head feels like exploding. :-) More importantly, sysfs_get_dentry() seems like it would deference ERR_PTR() value. No? -- tejun