When an error occurs in reiserfs_file_write before any data is written, and
O_SYNC is set, the return code of generic_osync_write will overwrite the
error code, losing it.
This patch ensures that generic_osync_inode() doesn't run under an error
condition, losing the error. This duplicates the logic from
generic_file_buffered_write().
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
diff -ruNpX dontdiff linux-2.6.15/fs/reiserfs/file.c linux-2.6.15.reiserfs/fs/reiserfs/file.c
--- linux-2.6.15/fs/reiserfs/file.c 2006-03-02 12:10:04.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.15.reiserfs/fs/reiserfs/file.c 2006-03-02 16:08:49.000000000 -0500
@@ -1563,10 +1563,10 @@ static ssize_t reiserfs_file_write(struc
}
}
- if ((file->f_flags & O_SYNC) || IS_SYNC(inode))
- res =
- generic_osync_inode(inode, file->f_mapping,
- OSYNC_METADATA | OSYNC_DATA);
+ if (likely(res >= 0) &&
+ (unlikely((file->f_flags & O_SYNC) || IS_SYNC(inode))))
+ res = generic_osync_inode(inode, file->f_mapping,
+ OSYNC_METADATA | OSYNC_DATA);
mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
reiserfs_async_progress_wait(inode->i_sb);
--
Jeff Mahoney
SuSE Labs
Boy, lots of reiserfs things happening lately.
We presently have:
reiserfs-do-not-check-if-unsigned-0.patch [ merged today ]
reiserfs-fix-transaction-overflowing.patch
reiserfs-handle-trans_id-overflow.patch
reiserfs-reiserfs_file_write-will-lose-error-code-when-a-0-length-write-occurs-w-o_sync.patch
reiserfs-cleanups.patch
reiserfs-use-balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr-in-reiserfs_file_write.patch
reiserfs-fix-unaligned-bitmap-usage.patch
The question is, which of these are sufficiently serious-and-safe for
2.6.16?
I haven't seen any resierfs bug reports for quite some time (except for the
usual dribble of it-goes-oops-in-prints.c-when-something-went-wrong
reports).
So I'm inclined to hold off on all the above?
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> reiserfs-fix-unaligned-bitmap-usage.patch
I applied this one already, it seemed obvious.
(And then I've applied the ones you forwarded to me, of course).
Linus
Andrew Morton wrote:
>Boy, lots of reiserfs things happening lately.
>
>We presently have:
>
>reiserfs-do-not-check-if-unsigned-0.patch [ merged today ]
>reiserfs-fix-transaction-overflowing.patch
>reiserfs-handle-trans_id-overflow.patch
>reiserfs-reiserfs_file_write-will-lose-error-code-when-a-0-length-write-occurs-w-o_sync.patch
>reiserfs-cleanups.patch
>reiserfs-use-balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr-in-reiserfs_file_write.patch
>reiserfs-fix-unaligned-bitmap-usage.patch
>
>The question is, which of these are sufficiently serious-and-safe for
>2.6.16?
>
>I haven't seen any resierfs bug reports for quite some time (except for the
>usual dribble of it-goes-oops-in-prints.c-when-something-went-wrong
>reports).
>
>So I'm inclined to hold off on all the above?
>
>
>
>
I suggest that they sit in -mm or an rc for ~2 weeks before they go in.
If 2.6.16 is coming out before then, then let it ship without them. All
of these things are pretty obscure/rare, so not unsettling the code
matters more than getting them in.