From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10] VFS: Fix error handling of write_super_lockfs/unlockfs Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:59:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20080922105956.GA16069@infradead.org> References: <20080922195526t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "axboe@kernel.dk" , "mtk.manpages@googlemail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , Christoph Hellwig , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" To: Takashi Sato Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080922195526t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:55:26PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote: > I've changed the type of write_super_lockfs and unlockfs from "void" to > "int" so that they can return an error. Returning an error from the freeze operation makes sense, but for the unfreeze I don't see the point. You must however change all existing instances to actually return a value (even if it's always 0 for now) to avoid breaking git bisect. If you touch all instances anyway, it would be nice to rename them to freeze / unfreze as the current names are more confusing.