Ryusuke Konishi 47420c7998 nilfs2: avoid double error caused by nilfs_transaction_end
Pekka Enberg pointed out that double error handlings found after
nilfs_transaction_end() can be avoided by separating abort operation:

 OK, I don't understand this. The only way nilfs_transaction_end() can
 fail is if we have NILFS_TI_SYNC set and we fail to construct the
 segment. But why do we want to construct a segment if we don't commit?

 I guess what I'm asking is why don't we have a separate
 nilfs_transaction_abort() function that can't fail for the erroneous
 case to avoid this double error value tracking thing?

This does the separation and renames nilfs_transaction_end() to
nilfs_transaction_commit() for clarification.

Since, some calls of these functions were used just for exclusion control
against the segment constructor, they are replaced with semaphore
operations.

Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-04-07 08:31:17 -07:00
..
2009-04-02 19:05:08 -07:00
2009-04-02 19:05:08 -07:00
2009-04-03 16:42:41 +01:00
2009-04-01 08:59:23 -07:00
2009-01-22 13:15:57 +03:00
2009-03-31 23:00:26 -04:00
2009-04-01 08:59:23 -07:00
2009-04-02 19:05:09 -07:00
2009-03-31 19:44:38 +03:00
2009-03-31 23:00:26 -04:00
2009-01-22 13:15:58 +03:00
2009-04-02 19:05:09 -07:00
2009-03-31 23:00:26 -04:00
2009-03-27 14:44:05 -04:00
2009-04-02 19:05:10 -07:00
2009-04-02 19:04:48 -07:00
2009-04-02 19:05:10 -07:00
2009-04-02 19:05:10 -07:00
2009-03-27 14:44:03 -04:00
2008-12-31 18:07:43 -05:00
2009-01-03 11:45:54 -08:00
2009-03-31 23:00:27 -04:00
2009-03-31 23:00:28 -04:00
2009-04-02 19:04:48 -07:00
2009-03-31 23:00:26 -04:00
2009-03-16 08:34:35 -06:00
2009-04-07 08:31:16 -07:00
2009-04-07 08:31:16 -07:00
2009-02-18 15:37:53 -08:00