On Jul 21, 2013, at 1:40 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 01:10:23PM +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
>>> diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c b/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c
>>> index dc9a913..a660fd7 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nilfs2/segbuf.c
>>> @@ -346,7 +346,8 @@ static void nilfs_end_bio_write(struct bio *bio, int
>>> err)
>>> if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>> set_bit(BIO_EOPNOTSUPP, &bio->bi_flags);
>>> bio_put(bio);
>>> - /* to be detected by submit_seg_bio() */
>>> + /* to be detected by nilfs_segbuf_submit_bio() */
>>> + return;
>>
>> I think that simple return from the function is not right way. As I
>> understand the code,
>> then we increment error count in segbuf's sb_err field and signalize about
>> completion of
>> operation. So, from my viewpoint, it needs to remove the bio_put() call for
>> the case of
>> (err == -EOPNOTSUPP) instead of return from function.
>>
>
> Do you think you could send that patch and give me a reported-by
> tag? I feel weird signing off on it when I don't really understand
> this code...
>
Ok, sure. I'll send the patch and continue discussion with Ryusuke
(if he will have objections).
Thank you for the report and fix suggestion.
With the best regards,
Vyacheslav Dubeyko.
> regards,
> dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
