On 11/06/2013, at 16:00, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 09:07:55PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
>> --- a/disk-io.c
>> +++ b/disk-io.c
>> @@ -1267,12 +1267,12 @@ static int close_all_devices(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
>> while (!list_empty(list)) {
>> device = list_entry(list->next, struct btrfs_device, dev_list);
>> list_del_init(&device->dev_list);
>> - if (device->fd) {
>> + if (device->fd > 0) {
>
>> - device = kmalloc(sizeof(*device), GFP_NOFS);
>> + device = kzalloc(sizeof(*device), GFP_NOFS);
>> if (!device)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> - device->total_ios = 0;
>
> Can you please describe the incremental change between the two patches?
> Why do you exclude fd == 0 ?
Sorry, I messed up my git send-email foo.
I excluded 0 because the original code did it too, however it was logically
incorrect. The last patch version (v2, 3rd email) does not exclude 0 and
ensures that -1 is used everywhere as a marker for invalid fd.
(Hopefully now I figured how to use git send-email to update a patch
correctly)
Thanks
>
> 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
