Re: [PATCH 7/10] jfs: Fix error handling in write_super_lockfs/unlockfs

[Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 19:57 +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
> I've changed write_super_lockfs/unlockfs so that they always return
> 0 (success) to keep a current behavior.

Address Christoph's concerns, and you can add my ack.  The bits that
change the return code need to be a single patch.

> Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <t-sato@yk.jp.nec.com>
> Signed-off-by: Masayuki Hamaguchi <m-hamaguchi@ys.jp.nec.com>
Acked-by: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>


> -static void jfs_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> +static int jfs_write_super_lockfs(struct super_block *sb)
>  {
>  	struct jfs_sb_info *sbi = JFS_SBI(sb);
>  	struct jfs_log *log = sbi->log;
> @@ -553,9 +553,10 @@ static void jfs_write_super_lockfs(struc
>  		lmLogShutdown(log);
>  		updateSuper(sb, FM_CLEAN);
>  	}
> +	return 0;

Alright.  Nothing should fail here, and if it does, we're screwed
anyway.

> -static void jfs_unlockfs(struct super_block *sb)
> +static int jfs_unlockfs(struct super_block *sb)
>  {
>  	struct jfs_sb_info *sbi = JFS_SBI(sb);
>  	struct jfs_log *log = sbi->log;
> @@ -568,6 +569,7 @@ static void jfs_unlockfs(struct super_bl
>  		else
>  			txResume(sb);
>  	}
> +	return 0;

jfs_unlockfs() could return non-zero in the case where lmLogInit()
fails.  I'm not sure what good that does though.  There isn't much the
caller can do when an unfreeze fails.

Shaggy
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center