Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exfat: change exfat_set_vol_flags() return type void.
To:     youngjun <her0gyugyu@gmail.com>,
        Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>,
        Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200715135000.86155-1-her0gyugyu@gmail.com>
From:   Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb125a5c-7e3f-2480-8a20-55805ec554ef@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:35:22 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200715135000.86155-1-her0gyugyu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020/07/15 22:50, youngjun wrote:
> exfat_set_vol_flags() always return 0.
> So, change function return type as void.

On the contrary, I think it should be fixed to return an appropriate error.


> @@ -114,7 +113,7 @@ int exfat_set_vol_flags(struct super_block *sb, unsigned short new_flag)
>   	 * if this volume has been mounted with read-only
>   	 */
>   	if (sb_rdonly(sb))
> -		return 0;
> +		return;

Some other FileSystems return -EROFS.
exfat-fs may also need to return it.
(If so, the caller will also need to be modified)


>   	p_boot->vol_flags = cpu_to_le16(new_flag);
>   
> @@ -128,7 +127,7 @@ int exfat_set_vol_flags(struct super_block *sb, unsigned short new_flag)
>   
>   	if (sync)
>   		sync_dirty_buffer(sbi->boot_bh);
> -	return 0;
> +	return;

Shouldn't the execution result be returned when sync_dirty_buffer() is executed?


BR
---
Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@gmail.com>