From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8MBOhSL026325 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:24:45 -0700 Received: from fogou.chygwyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 0FBED1BD1A01 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fogou.chygwyn.com ([195.171.2.24]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 84Gi7STWZjZD9N2J for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:23:45 +0100 From: steve@chygwyn.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/10] gfs2: Fix error handling in write_super_lockfs/unlockfs Message-ID: <20080922112345.GA10387@fogou.chygwyn.com> References: <20080922195718t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080922195718t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Takashi Sato Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "mtk.manpages@googlemail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Hi, On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:57:18PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote: > I've changed write_super_lockfs/unlockfs so that they always return > 0 (success) to keep a current behavior. > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato > Signed-off-by: Masayuki Hamaguchi > --- > ops_super.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c linux > -2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-gfs2/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c > --- linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-ext4/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c 2008-09-22 07:29:55.000000000 +0900 > +++ linux-2.6.27-rc7-lockfs-gfs2/fs/gfs2/ops_super.c 2008-09-22 10:52:16.000000000 +0900 > @@ -166,13 +166,13 @@ static int gfs2_sync_fs(struct super_blo > * > */ > > -static void gfs2_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb) > +static int gfs2_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb) > { > struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = sb->s_fs_info; > int error; > > if (test_bit(SDF_SHUTDOWN, &sdp->sd_flags)) > - return; > + return 0; > Since this now returns a status, then this should indicate a failure I think. Perhaps -EINVAL would be suitable? Otherwise it looks good from a gfs2 perspective, Steve.