Re: [PATCH 3/4] fsfreeze: manage kill signal whensb_start_pagefault is called

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 12:05:52PM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> In every place where sb_start_pagefault was called now we must manage
> the error code and return VM_FAULT_RETRY.

Erm ... in patch 1/4:

 static inline void sb_start_pagefault(struct super_block *sb)
 {
-       __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT, true);
+       __sb_start_write_wait(sb, SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT, false);
 }

>  
> -	sb_start_pagefault(inode->i_sb);
> +	ret = sb_start_pagefault(inode->i_sb);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
>  	ret  = btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space(inode, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);

Does the compiler not warn that you're assigning void to 'ret'?  Or was
there some other SNAFU sending these patches?

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/