From 285465fbdb5a185eeb6bd7dc077356056c61e39f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: CismonX Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:36:47 +0800 Subject: Fix wrong use of the EBADFD errno should use EBADF instead --- example/notify_inval_inode.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'example/notify_inval_inode.c') diff --git a/example/notify_inval_inode.c b/example/notify_inval_inode.c index de88c87..db24335 100644 --- a/example/notify_inval_inode.c +++ b/example/notify_inval_inode.c @@ -287,14 +287,14 @@ static void* update_fs_loop(void *data) { if (!options.no_notify && lookup_cnt) { /* Only send notification if the kernel is aware of the inode */ - /* Some errors (ENOENT, EBADFD, ENODEV) have to be accepted as the + /* Some errors (ENOENT, EBADF, ENODEV) have to be accepted as they * might come up during umount, when kernel side already releases * all inodes, but does not send FUSE_DESTROY yet. */ int ret = fuse_lowlevel_notify_inval_inode(se, FILE_INO, 0, 0); if ((ret != 0 && !is_stop) && - ret != -ENOENT && ret != -EBADFD && ret != -ENODEV) { + ret != -ENOENT && ret != -EBADF && ret != -ENODEV) { fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: fuse_lowlevel_notify_store() failed with %s (%d)\n", strerror(-ret), -ret); -- cgit v1.2.3