From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n1BMdxVS160157 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:40:00 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:39:23 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: fix error handling in xfs_log_mount Message-ID: <20090211223923.GA25252@infradead.org> References: <20090210194422.767988000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090210194515.509547000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090210195756.GA7569@infradead.org> <1E52072E-CA98-430B-9B2F-FDD0FDD1A7A4@sgi.com> <49920CB5.1020103@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49920CB5.1020103@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Lachlan McIlroy Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:24:37AM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > I'd prefer both fixes go in so we have maximum defence against > this problem happening again but I'm really not fussed. I disagree. All these weird error checks for things that can't happen just make the code big, bloated and unreadable. And they make people sloppy by not enforcing the same unwind order thus leading to more bugs (as seen by the historic xfs mount path before we started unwinding it) _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs