From 47420c799830d4676e544dbec56b2a7f787528f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ryusuke Konishi Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:01:45 -0700 Subject: nilfs2: avoid double error caused by nilfs_transaction_end Pekka Enberg pointed out that double error handlings found after nilfs_transaction_end() can be avoided by separating abort operation: OK, I don't understand this. The only way nilfs_transaction_end() can fail is if we have NILFS_TI_SYNC set and we fail to construct the segment. But why do we want to construct a segment if we don't commit? I guess what I'm asking is why don't we have a separate nilfs_transaction_abort() function that can't fail for the erroneous case to avoid this double error value tracking thing? This does the separation and renames nilfs_transaction_end() to nilfs_transaction_commit() for clarification. Since, some calls of these functions were used just for exclusion control against the segment constructor, they are replaced with semaphore operations. Acked-by: Pekka Enberg Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/nilfs2/nilfs.h | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'fs/nilfs2/nilfs.h') diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/nilfs.h b/fs/nilfs2/nilfs.h index 17458ad4a80..48c070676cc 100644 --- a/fs/nilfs2/nilfs.h +++ b/fs/nilfs2/nilfs.h @@ -166,7 +166,8 @@ struct nilfs_transaction_info { int nilfs_transaction_begin(struct super_block *, struct nilfs_transaction_info *, int); -int nilfs_transaction_end(struct super_block *, int); +int nilfs_transaction_commit(struct super_block *); +void nilfs_transaction_abort(struct super_block *); static inline void nilfs_set_transaction_flag(unsigned int flag) { -- cgit v1.2.3-18-g5258