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
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 23 2002 - 22:00:24 EST