Revision 47420c799830d4676e544dbec56b2a7f787528f5 authored by Ryusuke Konishi on 07 April 2009, 02:01:45 UTC, committed by Linus Torvalds on 07 April 2009, 15:31:17 UTC
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 <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
1 parent a2e7d2d
File | Mode | Size |
---|---|---|
Kconfig | -rw-r--r-- | 1.6 KB |
Makefile | -rw-r--r-- | 271 bytes |
af_x25.c | -rw-r--r-- | 37.4 KB |
sysctl_net_x25.c | -rw-r--r-- | 2.5 KB |
x25_dev.c | -rw-r--r-- | 4.3 KB |
x25_facilities.c | -rw-r--r-- | 8.0 KB |
x25_forward.c | -rw-r--r-- | 3.8 KB |
x25_in.c | -rw-r--r-- | 8.8 KB |
x25_link.c | -rw-r--r-- | 8.7 KB |
x25_out.c | -rw-r--r-- | 5.3 KB |
x25_proc.c | -rw-r--r-- | 7.7 KB |
x25_route.c | -rw-r--r-- | 4.8 KB |
x25_subr.c | -rw-r--r-- | 9.1 KB |
x25_timer.c | -rw-r--r-- | 3.8 KB |
Computing file changes ...