From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:45244 "EHLO
        ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726001AbeJMLAI (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 13 Oct 2018 07:00:08 -0400
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 04:24:37 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Martin Brandenburg <martin@omnibond.com>
Cc: hubcap@omnibond.com, devel@lists.orangefs.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] orangefs: move new_inode call to namei
Message-ID: <20181013032437.GJ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20181010022131.2954-1-martin@omnibond.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181010022131.2954-1-martin@omnibond.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:21:31AM +0000, Martin Brandenburg wrote:
> Before, orangefs_new_inode could return NULL which was not handled.
> Instead allocate the inode before calling orangefs_new_inode where the
> failure can be handled.

Umm...  Perhaps it would be easier to simply return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) in
the same situation?