From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746127F54 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 04:51:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636F28F8037 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 02:51:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id am3iba7kaBVXywLK (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 02:51:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 02:51:22 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: lobotomise xfs_trans_read_buf_map() Message-ID: <20141203105122.GA3727@infradead.org> References: <1417473290-17544-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20141202165930.GA28571@infradead.org> <20141202224518.GG18131@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141202224518.GG18131@dastard> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 09:45:18AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Can you fix the inconsistent return for the trylock case in a follow on > > patch? This difference doesn't look intentional to me, and I would > > be surprised if it's correctly handled in the callers. > > Ok, I'll do an audit and make this common in a follow up patch. Just > to confirm: > > if (!(flags & XBF_TRYLOCK)) > return -ENOMEM; > return -EAGAIN; > > is what you want to see, right? Yes. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs