lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.34 ufs/super.c

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?

Linus

----
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Skip Ford wrote:
>
> I've needed this patch since 2.5.32 to successfully mount a UFS
> partition.
>
> --- linux/fs/ufs/super.c~ Mon Sep 9 16:39:52 2002
> +++ linux/fs/ufs/super.c Mon Sep 9 16:39:57 2002
> @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@
> }
>
> again:
> - if (sb_set_blocksize(sb, block_size)) {
> + if (!sb_set_blocksize(sb, block_size)) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "UFS: failed to set blocksize\n");
> goto failed;
> }
>
>

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.058 / U:1.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site