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>

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.h b/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.h
index dee8d83e054..9cd3c113f05 100644
--- a/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.h
+++ b/fs/nilfs2/the_nilfs.h
@@ -112,8 +112,8 @@ struct the_nilfs {
 	/*
 	 * Following fields are dedicated to a writable FS-instance.
 	 * Except for the period seeking checkpoint, code outside the segment
-	 * constructor must lock a segment semaphore with transaction_begin()
-	 * and transaction_end(), when accessing these fields.
+	 * constructor must lock a segment semaphore while accessing these
+	 * fields.
 	 * The writable FS-instance is sole during a lifetime of the_nilfs.
 	 */
 	u64			ns_seg_seq;