Andrea writes:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 01:05:53PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > the RAID and LVM make_request functions should be changed to do that
> > instead (i.e. 0 on success, -ve on error, and maybe "1" if they do their
> > own recursion to break the loop)?
>
> We preferred to let the lowlevel drivers to handle error themselfs to
> simplify the interface. The lowlevel driver needs to call buffer_IO_error
> before returning in case of error.
Even if the lowlevel driver handles the error case, it would still
make more sense to stick with the normal kernel practise of -ERROR,
and 0 for success. Then, if in the future we can do something with the
error codes, at least we don't have to change the interface yet again.
Also, it is a bit confusing, because the lvm (and md, I suppose) driver
returned "0" for success in 2.2, so now you need to special-case the
return value depending on kernel version, if you want to keep the same
code for 2.2 and 2.4.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 21:00:26 EST