On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:16:41PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 03:16:12PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > I've noticed that return value from merge_reloc_roots is never checked > > in the callers. Did you verify that this is ok? > > Yeah, it's fine. Then it's ok to change return value to 'void' so it does not look like an unhandled errorcode. > Actually we set fs to RO once we get error here, as we have recorded a balance > item and , balance can start over again the next time. Yeah, if we get there via transaction abort. My background motivation is to implement a (much) more responsive balance cancel. This is different from the poweroff "cancel", because it does not keep any in-memory state. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
