Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:42:58 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.34 ufs/super.c |
| |
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > This patch is definitely correct, but on the other hand I really think > that the calling convention of sb_set_blocksize() is wrong, and instead of > returning "size for success or zero for failure ", it should return "error > code for failure or zero for success". > > There's just no point to returning the same size we just passed in. > > And making that calling convention the new one would make the current UFS > code be the _right_ one. > > Al, comments? Why the strange calling convention?
No particulary good reason, except keeping calling convention the same for sb_set_blocksize() and sb_min_blocksize()...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |