From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Pekka Enberg" Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/27] nilfs2: pathname operations Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:20:23 +0300 Message-ID: <84144f020809151120u36338574y4577fa73ea3d222f@mail.gmail.com> References: <1221419304-18572-1-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1221419304-18572-11-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1221419304-18572-12-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1221419304-18572-13-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1221419304-18572-14-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1221419304-18572-15-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1221419304-18572-16-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1221419304-18572-17-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1221419304-18572-18-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1221419304-18572-19-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Andrew Morton" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Ryusuke Konishi" Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]:20138 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753217AbYIOSUZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:20:25 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id p76so1671089pyb.10 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:20:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1221419304-18572-19-git-send-email-konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Ryusuke, On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > This adds pathname operations, most of which comes from the ext2 file > system. > > Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi > +/* > + * By the time this is called, we already have created > + * the directory cache entry for the new file, but it > + * is so far negative - it has no inode. > + * > + * If the create succeeds, we fill in the inode information > + * with d_instantiate(). > + */ > +static int nilfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int mode, > + struct nameidata *nd) > +{ > + struct inode *inode; > + struct nilfs_transaction_info ti; > + int err, err2; > + > + err = nilfs_transaction_begin(dir->i_sb, &ti, 1); > + if (err) > + return err; > + inode = nilfs_new_inode(dir, mode); > + err = PTR_ERR(inode); > + if (!IS_ERR(inode)) { > + inode->i_op = &nilfs_file_inode_operations; > + inode->i_fop = &nilfs_file_operations; > + inode->i_mapping->a_ops = &nilfs_aops; > + mark_inode_dirty(inode); > + err = nilfs_add_nondir(dentry, inode); > + } > + err2 = nilfs_transaction_end(dir->i_sb, !err); OK, I don't understand this. The only way nilfs_transaction_end() can fail is if we have NILFS_TI_SYNC set and we fail to construct the segment. But why do we want to construct a segment if we don't commit? I guess what I'm asking is why don't we have a separate nilfs_transaction_abort() function that can't fail for the erroneous case to avoid this double error value tracking thing? Pekka