Re: [PATCH] add_partition silently ignored errors

[Dirk Hohndel]

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 02:04:39PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > IIRC, Al recently vetoed a similar patch. As far as I'm concerned, with
> > > > > > the correct return values, the patch then looks fine to me.
> > 
> > So Al, are you ok with this one?

Still haven't seen feedback from Al...

> > [FILESYSTEM] add_partition ignores errors
> 
> Looks good to me. One final return value note:
> 
> > @@ -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;
> >  		}
> 
> -EBUSY seems a bit confusing here, although I don't know what the best
> value to return would be (and it probably doesn't matter). -EOVERFLOW?
> -ENOSPC?

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?

/D
-
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/