Re: [PATCH] Test for sb_getblk return value

[glommer@br.ibm.com (Glauber de Oliveira Costa)]

Andrew,

Thanks a lot for your patience and review. And also for the document. It
was really helpfull. Patch follows in next mail.



On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 04:32:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@br.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm resending it now with the changes you suggested. 
> > Actually, 2 copies of it follows. 
> 
> argh.  Please never attach multiple patches to a single email.
> 
> And please always include a complete, uptodate changelog with each iteration
> of a patch.  I don't want to have to troll back through the mailing list,
> identify the initial changelog and then replay the email thread making any
> needed updates to that changelog.
> 
> Also please review section 11 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches then
> include a Signed-off-by: with your patches.
> 
> > In the first one(v2), I kept the style in the changes in resize.c, as this 
> > seems to be the default way things like this are done there. In the other, 
> > (v3), I did statement checks in the way you suggested in both files.
> 
> Don't worry about the surrounding style - if it's wrong, it's wrong.  Just
> stick with Documentation/CodingStyle.
> 
> Do this:
> 
> 		if (!bh) {
> 
> and not this:
> 
> 		if (!bh){
> 
> > Also, sorry for the last mail. I got a problem with my relay, and my mail 
> > address was sent wrong before I noticed that. Mails sent to it will probably 
> > return.
> 
> The change to update_backups() is wrong - it will leave a JBD transaction
> open on return.
> 
> Please fix all that up and resend. 
> http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt may prove useful,
> thanks.
> 
> 

-- 
=====================================
Glauber de Oliveira Costa
IBM Linux Technology Center - Brazil
glommer@br.ibm.com
=====================================