Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:14:49 +0100 (MET) | From | Oliver.Neukum@lrz ... | Subject | Re: Patch, forward release() return values to the close() call |
| |
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Oliver Neukum wrote: > > >On Thursday 21 March 2002 09:27, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > >>Whoops, my apologies. The patch looks ok to me. > >> > >>I read your text closely and the patch not close enough. As I said, it > >>is indeed wrong for a device driver to fail f_op->release(), "fail" > >>being defined as leaving fd state lying around, assuming that the system > >>will fail the fput(). > >> > >>But your patch merely propagates a return value, not change behavior, > >>which seems sane to me. > >> > > > >Hi, > > > >close() does not directly map to release(). > >If you want your device to return error > >information reliably, you need to implement flush(). > > > > Agreed. > > I still think propagating f_op->release's return value is a good idea, > though. > > Jeff
Probably. Throwing away information without need is bad.
Regards Oliver
- 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/
|  |