Use 'retval' instead of 'status'.
Signed-off-by: Daeseok Youn <[email protected]>
---
fs/ocfs2/dir.c | 12 ++++++------
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dir.c b/fs/ocfs2/dir.c
index b08050b..1478a50 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dir.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/dir.c
@@ -1617,7 +1617,7 @@ int __ocfs2_add_entry(handle_t *handle,
struct ocfs2_dir_entry *de, *de1;
struct ocfs2_dinode *di = (struct ocfs2_dinode *)parent_fe_bh->b_data;
struct super_block *sb = dir->i_sb;
- int retval, status;
+ int retval;
unsigned int size = sb->s_blocksize;
struct buffer_head *insert_bh = lookup->dl_leaf_bh;
char *data_start = insert_bh->b_data;
@@ -1695,22 +1695,22 @@ int __ocfs2_add_entry(handle_t *handle,
}
if (insert_bh == parent_fe_bh)
- status = ocfs2_journal_access_di(handle,
+ retval = ocfs2_journal_access_di(handle,
INODE_CACHE(dir),
insert_bh,
OCFS2_JOURNAL_ACCESS_WRITE);
else {
- status = ocfs2_journal_access_db(handle,
+ retval = ocfs2_journal_access_db(handle,
INODE_CACHE(dir),
insert_bh,
OCFS2_JOURNAL_ACCESS_WRITE);
if (ocfs2_dir_indexed(dir)) {
- status = ocfs2_dx_dir_insert(dir,
+ retval = ocfs2_dx_dir_insert(dir,
handle,
lookup);
- if (status) {
- mlog_errno(status);
+ if (retval) {
+ mlog_errno(retval);
goto bail;
}
}
--
1.7.1
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:38:10 +0900 Daeseok Youn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Use 'retval' instead of 'status'.
>
The patch does a lot more than this. It causes __ocfs2_add_entry to
propagate error codes which were previously dropped on the floor.
Please update the changelog to fully explain the functional changes and
to explain why they are desirable.
After the patch there is still one unchecked call to
ocfs2_journal_access_di() and one unchecked call to
ocfs2_journal_access_db(). Probably these are bugs.
Hi,
I think this patch was already queued. Can I send this patch again
after update changelog?
Thanks.
Regards,
Daeseok Youn
2015-02-27 6:33 GMT+09:00 Andrew Morton <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:38:10 +0900 Daeseok Youn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Use 'retval' instead of 'status'.
>>
>
> The patch does a lot more than this. It causes __ocfs2_add_entry to
> propagate error codes which were previously dropped on the floor.
>
> Please update the changelog to fully explain the functional changes and
> to explain why they are desirable.
>
> After the patch there is still one unchecked call to
> ocfs2_journal_access_di() and one unchecked call to
> ocfs2_journal_access_db(). Probably these are bugs.
>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:27 AM, DaeSeok Youn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this patch was already queued. Can I send this patch again
> after update changelog?
One thing that is much more important, how did you test this patch? Did you?
--
Thanks,
//richard
Hi,
2015-02-27 18:41 GMT+09:00 Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:27 AM, DaeSeok Youn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think this patch was already queued. Can I send this patch again
>> after update changelog?
>
> One thing that is much more important, how did you test this patch? Did you?
I couldn't test, actually I don't have the environment for testing
this file system.
just looking this file for cleaning up and found this.
Thanks.
Daeseok Youn.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> //richard
Am 27.02.2015 um 11:29 schrieb DaeSeok Youn:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-02-27 18:41 GMT+09:00 Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:27 AM, DaeSeok Youn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think this patch was already queued. Can I send this patch again
>>> after update changelog?
>>
>> One thing that is much more important, how did you test this patch? Did you?
>
> I couldn't test, actually I don't have the environment for testing
> this file system.
> just looking this file for cleaning up and found this.
*please* setup a test environment and test the code paths you're changing.
Thanks,
//richard