[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6c5339f0711021250w78fc420ekbc68e3c74b9939d3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:50:29 -0400
From: "Bob Copeland" <me@...copeland.com>
To: "Dirk Hohndel" <hohndel@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Jens Axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"Cornelia Huck" <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
"Andries Brouwer" <aeb@....nl>, "Al Viro" <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add_partition silently ignored errors
On 11/2/07, Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@...ux.intel.com> 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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists