[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080812203808.GV28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:38:08 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] readdir mess
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 01:21:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> We *must* handle partial returns by returning "success". And we do,
> except for our _confusion_ about ->readdir() returning error and that
> somehow "overriding" the fact that it already returned non-errors earlier
> through the callback.
>
> All your blathering about "positive values as well" seems to ttoally
> misunderstand how readdir() works. We absolutely do *not* need positive
> return values, because the fact is, the only positive return value we ever
> need is the "we already filled _earlier_ buffers". And that's the one
> that we already do.
>
> The fact is, NO ERROR VALUE CAN POSSIBLY MATTER if we already returned one
> or more entries to getdents/readdir(). We should return a success value.
Would you care to grep for vfs_readdir() in the tree? It's not just
sys_getdents(); for better of worse the thing had become a general-purpose
iterator. And I'm not suggesting to pass the damn thing to caller of
sys_getdents(). At all.
--
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