[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.042 / U:1.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site