From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tsutomu Itoh Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix return value check of btrfs_start_transaction() Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:47:12 +0900 Message-ID: <4D38C980.3020001@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <201101200619.AA00004@T-ITOH1.jp.fujitsu.com> <20110120160959.GB6609@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, chris.mason@oracle.com To: Josef Bacik Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110120160959.GB6609@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com> List-ID: (2011/01/21 1:09), Josef Bacik wrote: > I'd rather we go through and have these things return an error than d= o a > BUG_ON(). We're moving towards a more stable BTRFS, not one that pan= ics more > often :). Yes, I also think so. This patch is my first step. My modification policy is as follows: 1. short term - To more stable BTRFS, the part that should be corrected is clarified= =2E=20 - The panic is not done by the NULL pointer reference etc. 2. long term =E3=80=80- BUG_ON() is decreased by using the forced-readonly framework= (already posted by Liu Bo), etc.=20 Thanks, Itoh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html