On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Dan Carpenter
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
>>
>> > Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
>> > function can't continue.
>> > Nick
>> >
>> > On
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Dan Carpenter
dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
function can't continue.
Nick
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
>
> > Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
> > function can't continue.
> > Nick
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dan Carpenter
> > wrote:
> > >
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
function can't continue.
Nick
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > The problem is that we don't know if we should return here or break
> > > here. If you don't understand the code, then it's best to just leave it
> > > alone.
>
> Dan, what kind of attitude is that?
>
> Nick certainly found
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
The problem is that we don't know if we should return here or break
here. If you don't understand the code, then it's best to just leave it
alone.
Dan, what kind of attitude is that?
Nick certainly found an issue where
I don't think that it's a good idea , in that case I
would recommend either leaving this bug open
or close it as there doesn't seem to be a good
way of testing this.
Cheers Nick
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:55:07 -0400 Nick Krause wrote:
>
>>
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:55:07 -0400 Nick Krause wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:25:47 -0400 Nick Krause wrote:
> >
> >> If you have any ideas about what is better
> >> please let me known.
> >
> > I think the proposed patch was not a
Fair enough if somebody is running this file system I would be
happy to have someone test my code in order to fix this.
Cheers Nick
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:25:47 -0400 Nick Krause wrote:
>
>> If you have any ideas about what is better
>>
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:25:47 -0400 Nick Krause wrote:
> If you have any ideas about what is better
> please let me known.
I think the proposed patch was not a good one - it will cause truncate
to silently return, probably leaving the fs in an inconsistent state.
Neither the user nor the
Thanks for standing up for me Thomas.
If you have any ideas about what is better
please let me known.
Cheers Nick
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
>
>> Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
>>
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
> Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
> function can't continue.
> Nick
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dan Carpenter
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >>
Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
function can't continue.
Nick
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause
>> ---
>> fs/affs/file.c | 2 ++
>> 1
Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
function can't continue.
Nick
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause xerofo...@gmail.com
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts of the
function can't continue.
Nick
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
Thanks for standing up for me Thomas.
If you have any ideas about what is better
please let me known.
Cheers Nick
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Nick Krause wrote:
Ok that's fine I would return as if it's a NULL the other parts
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:25:47 -0400 Nick Krause xerofo...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have any ideas about what is better
please let me known.
I think the proposed patch was not a good one - it will cause truncate
to silently return, probably leaving the fs in an inconsistent state.
Neither the
Fair enough if somebody is running this file system I would be
happy to have someone test my code in order to fix this.
Cheers Nick
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:25:47 -0400 Nick Krause xerofo...@gmail.com wrote:
If you
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:55:07 -0400 Nick Krause xerofo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:25:47 -0400 Nick Krause xerofo...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have any ideas about what is better
please let me
I don't think that it's a good idea , in that case I
would recommend either leaving this bug open
or close it as there doesn't seem to be a good
way of testing this.
Cheers Nick
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:55:07 -0400
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause
> ---
> fs/affs/file.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/affs/file.c b/fs/affs/file.c
> index a7fe57d..f26482d 100644
> --- a/fs/affs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/affs/file.c
> @@
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause
---
fs/affs/file.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/affs/file.c b/fs/affs/file.c
index a7fe57d..f26482d 100644
--- a/fs/affs/file.c
+++ b/fs/affs/file.c
@@ -923,6 +923,8 @@ affs_truncate(struct inode *inode)
while (ext_key) {
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause xerofo...@gmail.com
---
fs/affs/file.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/affs/file.c b/fs/affs/file.c
index a7fe57d..f26482d 100644
--- a/fs/affs/file.c
+++ b/fs/affs/file.c
@@ -923,6 +923,8 @@ affs_truncate(struct inode *inode)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:08:05PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause xerofo...@gmail.com
---
fs/affs/file.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/affs/file.c b/fs/affs/file.c
index a7fe57d..f26482d 100644
--- a/fs/affs/file.c
+++
24 matches
Mail list logo
