| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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>
|
