From 47420c799830d4676e544dbec56b2a7f787528f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ryusuke Konishi Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:01:45 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] 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 --- Reading git-format-patch failed