On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:40:49AM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 07:32:44PM -0800, Manish Katiyar wrote:

quoted

 Hi Jan,

This is the follow up from https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/17/154
Following patches make jbd2 to use GFP_KERNEL for transaction
allocation if the caller can handle the errors. Following is the list
of functions that I updated to pass the new flag. Also below is the
list of functions which still have the old behavior and pass the old
flags (either because they can't deal with errors, or I wasn't too
sure so I did conservatively). Appreciate your feedback. The other
callers of jbd2_journal_start() are from ocfs2, they still pass the
old flag.

Hmm, I wonder if it would be better to use

jbd2_journal_start(...)

and

jbd2_journal_start_nofail(...)

	This API is markedly better to read.  Btw, does _nofail() mean no
possible failures, or just no memory errors?  If it is no failures, I'd
love to see the function become void.

The tradeoff is that long-term, the code is more readable (as opposed
to having people look up what a random "true" or "false" value means).
But short-term, while it will make the patch smaller, it also makes
the patch harder audit, since we need to look at all of the places
where we _haven't_ made a change to make sure those call sites can
tolerate an error return.

	I think we should start with jbd2_journal_start_can_fail() or
something like it, and change it back to jbd2_journal_start() in the
next window.  It's a silly name, but it catches exactly what you are
worried about.

Joel

-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #94

	"Make it a habit to do nice things for people who 
	 will never find out."

			http://www.jlbec.org/
			jlbec@evilplan.org