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 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 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:20 EST