Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
	Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
	Kingdom.
	Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071002102401.GB25647@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <20071002102401.GB25647@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20071001130921.29339.72876.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20071001131023.29339.51838.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk,
       torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/30] IGET: Stop EXT3 from using iget() and read_inode()
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:16:59 +0100
Message-ID: <24599.1191331019@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1035
Lines: 27

Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:

>   But if you 'goto out' in some branches, we loose the ext3_warning()
> which we probably don't want.

Ugh.  Okay, I need to rework the changes to that function.

> >  			return ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
>   Wouldn't here -EIO be more appropriate?

I would have thought so, but -EACCES was what it returned before I touched it.
OTOH, it's calling ext3_error(), so EIO ought to be the right thing to do.
I'll alter it and see if anyone complains.

>   Why don't we use PTR_ERR() always? Is there some reason not to return
> -EIO?

I do wonder why it used to return EINVAL rather than EIO.  It's understandable
if the magic number doesn't match, but if it appears to be an otherwise
corrupt filesystem, then yes, I guess it should return EIO.  I'll change it.

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/