X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-rupdated (updated) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FH_DATE_PAST_20XX autolearn=no version=3.3.0-rupdated Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o3UGbuHx173499 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:37:57 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1272645603-1315037a0000-NocioJ X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4124030205F for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 97nUVaTZngEga0SP for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:40:03 -0700 (PDT) X-ASG-Whitelist: Client Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1O7tFy-0007m6-Sm; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:40:02 +0000 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:40:02 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs-oss X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [PATCH] xfs: be more explicit if RT mount fails due to config Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: be more explicit if RT mount fails due to config Message-ID: <20100430164002.GC14107@infradead.org> References: <4BDA54A4.3040204@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BDA54A4.3040204@sandeen.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html X-Barracuda-Connect: bombadil.infradead.org[18.85.46.34] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1272645603 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.94.2, clamav-milter version 0.94.2 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean > + if (mp->m_sb.sb_rblocks == 0) > + return 0; > + else { > + cmn_err(CE_WARN, "XFS: Not built with CONFIG_XFS_RT"); > + return ENOSYS; > + } No need for the else if you return anyway. Looks good either way, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig