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 0C37B7F3F for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 08:09:53 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <547F19AE.6050808@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:09:50 -0600 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: lobotomise xfs_trans_read_buf_map() References: <1417473290-17544-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20141202165930.GA28571@infradead.org> <20141202224518.GG18131@dastard> <20141203105122.GA3727@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20141203105122.GA3727@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 12/03/14 04:51, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Even ENOMEM / EAGAIN could be wrong if _xfs_buf_find() was given an illegal block number - then it would be EFSCORRUPT. I think we need to push the error message from _xfs_buf_find(). I played with it once and seemed to have lost it and can do it again if no one else has the time. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs