[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071102202949.GA1128@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:29:49 -0700
From: Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.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 Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:50:29PM -0400, Bob Copeland wrote:
> 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
Thanks for finding that! I took a different approach than Andries but can
appreciate the argument. I'll remove that line from my patch.
/D
-
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