Re: [PATCH] add_partition silently ignored errors

[Bob Copeland]

On 11/2/07, Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > @@ -554,8 +573,11 @@ int rescan_partitions(struct gendisk *disk, struct block_device *bdev)
> > >             if (from + size > get_capacity(disk)) {
> > >                     printk(" %s: p%d exceeds device capacity\n",
> > >                             disk->disk_name, p);
> > > +                   return -EBUSY;
[snip]
> I was wondering about that myself - EBUSY seemed to be used in a couple of
> other cases where there wasn't a clear match, but I think EOVERFLOW actually
> might make more sense. Opinions?

ISTR that some people wanted to keep going in this case rather than
return an error, e.g. for forensic purposes...

.. digging... here's a thread from last year:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/11/64

-Bob
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/