From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Ext3: add necessary check in case IO error happens
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:30:50 -0500
Message-ID: <20130112203050.GA10950@thunk.org>
References: <CAP9B-QnAxGp71zncWqqni7pcbL-6VPV5ctEKPhP4C9ZQxOkWLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130111162633.GD16923@quack.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: shilong wang <wangshilong1991@gmail.com>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:42947 "EHLO
	imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754136Ab3ALUa6 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:30:58 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130111162633.GD16923@quack.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 05:26:33PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>   Thanks for the patch. I think returning ENOMEM instead of EIO would be
> better. Otherwise the patch looks OK.

This may be because fs/ext4/inode.c was returning EIO in similar
circumstances.  I agree ENOMEM is a better error code.  I'll fix up
ext4....

						- Ted