Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:29:14 -0700 | From | Dirk Hohndel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] add_partition silently ignored errors |
| |
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 02:04:39PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > So Al, are you ok with this one?
Still haven't seen feedback from Al...
> > [FILESYSTEM] add_partition ignores errors > > Looks good to me. One final return value note: > > > @@ -554,8 +573,11 @@ int rescan_partitions(struct gendisk *disk, struct block_device *bdev) > > if (from + size > get_capacity(disk)) { > > printk(" %s: p%d exceeds device capacity\n", > > disk->disk_name, p); > > + return -EBUSY; > > } > > -EBUSY seems a bit confusing here, although I don't know what the best > value to return would be (and it probably doesn't matter). -EOVERFLOW? > -ENOSPC?
I was wondering about that myself - EBUSY seemed to be used in a couple of other cases where there wasn't a clear match, but I think EOVERFLOW actually might make more sense. Opinions?
/D - 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/
| |