On 02/10/2014 11:30 PM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Yan, Zheng <zheng.z....@intel.com>
You need a better explanation than "fix."
We have the ENODATA thing (versus ENOATTR), but again
what you have is fine.
> ---
> fs/ceph/xattr.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/xattr.c b/fs/ceph/xattr.c
> index 6ed0e5a..79f9c12 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/xattr.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/xattr.c
> @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static int __remove_xattr(struct ceph_inode_info *ci,
> struct ceph_inode_xattr *xattr)
> {
> if (!xattr)
> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + return -ENODATA;
It seems like this could be a void function, and the (one) caller
could check for null before making the call.
Either way though, this looks good.
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <el...@linaro.org>
>
> rb_erase(&xattr->node, &ci->i_xattrs.index);
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
