[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211103160933.GK31562@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 17:09:33 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de, penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
dave.jiang@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, richard@....at,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, vigneshr@...com, efremov@...ux.com,
song@...nel.org, martin.petersen@...cle.com, hare@...e.de,
jack@...e.cz, ming.lei@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] block: make __register_blkdev() return an
error
On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 05:21:56AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> This makes __register_blkdev() return an error, and also changes the
> probe() call to return an error as well.
>
> We expand documentation for the probe call to ensure that if the block
> device already exists we don't return on error on that condition. We do
> this as otherwise we loose ability to handle concurrent requests if the
> block device already existed.
I'm still not really sold on this - if the probe fails no bdev will
be registered and the lookup will fail. What is the benefit of
propagating the exact error here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists