[pnfs] [PATCH 14/37] pnfs: initialize pnfs_layout_type generic fields in pnfs layer

[Dean Hildebrand]

Benny Halevy wrote:
> On Jan. 03, 2008, 10:54 +0200, Benny Halevy <bhalevy at panasas.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Jan. 03, 2008, 0:20 +0200, Dean Hildebrand <seattleplus at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>>>         
>>>>> index 9abd263..fdb3d40 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>>>> @@ -430,6 +430,8 @@ pnfs_inject_layout(struct nfs_inode *nfsi,
>>>>>  	if (nfsi->current_layout == NULL) {
>>>>>  		dprintk("%s Alloc'ing layout\n", __FUNCTION__);
>>>>>  		layid = io_ops->alloc_layout(server->pnfs_mountid, inode);
>>>>> +		if (layid)
>>>>> +			layid->inode = inode;
>>>>>  	} else {
>>>>>  		dprintk("%s Adding to current layout\n", __FUNCTION__);
>>>>>  		layid = nfsi->current_layout;
>>>>>   
>>>>>           
>>> What happens if layid is NULL?  Isn't that an error? 
>>> Dean
>>>
>>>       
>> Right, it is.
>>
>> In a later patch this code was moved to alloc_init_layout()
>> which, when returning NULL, triggers return of -ENOMEM from
>> get_alloc_layout() that's propagated up in pnfs_update_layout().
>>     
>
> One more thing, even in this version of pnfs_inject_layout as of this patch
> if layid==NULL we return NULL on line 445 resulting in -EIO from
> pnfs_update_layout().
>   
Ok, but I thought the agreement was to not send out patches where a 
later patch changes/fixes things from an earlier patch.  There is no 
point in me reviewing this patch if the function is totally rewritten in 
a later patch.
Dean
>   
>> Benny
>>     
>
>