From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33712 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752884AbdJMACS (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:02:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 02:02:16 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: handle error if xfs_btree_get_bufs fails Message-ID: <20171013000216.GD8049@wotan.suse.de> References: <20171010021949.GB8049@wotan.suse.de> <20171010040736.GY7122@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171010040736.GY7122@magnolia> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Eric Sandeen , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Eric Sandeen , Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs , gfigueira@suse.com, tetsuya.inoue@suse.com On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 09:07:36PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:07:12PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > > > On 10/9/17 9:19 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > What ever happened to this patch [0]? It was ACKed [1] > > > > (it was reviewed-by hch) > > > > > but I haven't > > > seen it merged. Did it fall through the cracks? > > > > Seems like it, possibly because I sent V2 as a re:, accidentally. > > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong If we're going to add this shouldn't we then also have checks for xfs_btree_get_bufl() calls? Luis