Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:07:42 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] add_partition silently ignored errors |
| |
On Mon, Oct 29 2007, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > diff --git a/block/ioctl.c b/block/ioctl.c > index 52d6385..bb3933e 100644 > --- a/block/ioctl.c > +++ b/block/ioctl.c > @@ -61,7 +61,10 @@ static int blkpg_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, struct blkpg_ioctl_arg __user > } > } > /* all seems OK */ > - add_partition(disk, part, start, length, ADDPART_FLAG_NONE); > + if (add_partition(disk, part, start, length, ADDPART_FLAG_NONE)) { > + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex); > + return -EBUSY; > + } > mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex); > return 0; > case BLKPG_DEL_PARTITION: > diff --git a/fs/partitions/check.c b/fs/partitions/check.c > index 722e12e..cd92471 100644 > --- a/fs/partitions/check.c > +++ b/fs/partitions/check.c > @@ -368,13 +368,13 @@ void delete_partition(struct gendisk *disk, int part) > kobject_put(&p->kobj); > } > > -void add_partition(struct gendisk *disk, int part, sector_t start, sector_t len, int flags) > +int add_partition(struct gendisk *disk, int part, sector_t start, sector_t len, int flags) > { > struct hd_struct *p; > > p = kzalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!p) > - return; > + return -1;
Why not return the 'correct' error codes, instead of always -1 and making that -EBUSY at the caller? This one should be -ENOMEM.
IIRC, Al recently vetoed a similar patch. As far as I'm concerned, with the correct return values, the patch then looks fine to me.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |