[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121002004728.GD29160@moria.home.lan>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:47:29 -0700
From: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
To: Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
tytso@...gle.com, tj@...nel.org,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
"Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
michael.mesnier@...el.com, jeffrey.d.skirvin@...el.com,
Martin Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] Extensible AIO interface
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:44:39PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> And what about duplicate instances of a given attribute id? Use the
> first? The last? Error? Depends on the id?
I thought of a better idea, instead of explicitly checking for
disallowed dups:
We want to return -ENOTHANDLED for not handled attributes anyways, so
let's just do that for dups - that'll catch erronious usage just fine
and a generic mechanism's better than a one off hack any day.
This does mean we can't punt on return values, which isn't a bad thing.
Also, if we've got duplicate attributes userspace needs to be able to
figure out which return value was for which attribute.
Two possibilities: one, return values come out in the same order
attributes went in. That'd work, but I dislike the subtlety and I expect
it'd be a pain for userspace.
Instead, let's just stick a u64 cookie in the attribute and include that
in the return, just like we do everywhere else.
--
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