From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chao Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] f2fs:Fix incorrect return statement in the function f2fs_ioc_release_volatile_write Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 19:47:14 +0800 Message-ID: <002201d0ea2c$37168df0$a543a9d0$@samsung.com> References: <1441542526-11916-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZHNh-0004fn-Ox for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 11:48:09 +0000 Received: from mailout4.samsung.com ([203.254.224.34]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1ZZHNf-0003Hn-MS for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 11:48:09 +0000 Received: from epcpsbgm1new.samsung.com (epcpsbgm1 [203.254.230.26]) by mailout4.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0NUC01JVUWS0N1C0@mailout4.samsung.com> for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 20:48:00 +0900 (KST) In-reply-to: <1441542526-11916-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> Content-language: zh-cn List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: 'Nicholas Krause' , jaegeuk@kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Nicholas Krause [mailto:xerofoify@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 8:29 PM > To: jaegeuk@kernel.org > Cc: cm224.lee@samsung.com; chao2.yu@samsung.com; linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: [PATCH RESEND] f2fs:Fix incorrect return statement in the function > f2fs_ioc_release_volatile_write > > This fixes the incorrect return statement at the end of the function > f2fs_ioc_release_volatile_write's body for returning zero as this is > incorrect due to the function call before this return statement to > the function punch_hole being able to fail and we should return this > function's return fail directly in order to signal to callers of the > function f2fs_ioc_release_volatile if a failure arises with this call > to punch_hole fails. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause Reviewed-by: Chao Yu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------