On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:35:19PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:

On 02/13/2018 01:31 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 05:38:19PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:

quoted

The function return values are confusing with the way the function is
named. We expect a true or false return value but it actually returns
0/-errno.  This makes the code very confusing. Changing the return values
to return a bool where if DAX is supported then return true and no DAX
support returns false.

Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
---

quoted

diff --git a/fs/ext2/super.c b/fs/ext2/super.c
index 655699321c45..636b9c5e1bff 100644
--- a/fs/ext2/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext2/super.c

@@ -958,9 +958,10 @@ static int ext2_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
 	blocksize = BLOCK_SIZE << le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_log_block_size);
 
 	if (sbi->s_mount_opt & EXT2_MOUNT_DAX) {
-		err = sb_dax_supported(sb, blocksize);
-		if (err)
+		if(!sb_dax_supported(sb, blocksize)) {
+			err = -EIO;

No need to set 'err' here.  This is just a temporary variable used for some
local checks later in the function.  'ret' is the value that will be returned,
and that is already initialized to -EINVAL which should be fine.

Change ret to -EIO instead to set the correct error return code?

I'm not sure that -EIO is the 'correct' return code.  The old
sb_dax_supported() code could have returned -EINVAL, -EOPNOTSUPP or -EIO,
based on what went wrong.  All the other error cases in this function just
goto failed_mount without messing with 'ret', and we should probably do the
same.