[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240213063226.GA4740@wunner.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 07:32:26 +0100
From: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] dax: alloc_dax() return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP) for
CONFIG_DAX=n
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:30:54AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Change the return value from NULL to PTR_ERR(-EOPNOTSUPP) for
> CONFIG_DAX=n to be consistent with the fact that CONFIG_DAX=y
> never returns NULL.
All the callers of alloc_dax() only check for IS_ERR().
Doesn't this result in a change of behavior in all the callers?
Previously they'd ignore the NULL return value and continue,
now they'll error out.
Given that, seems dangerous to add a Fixes tag with a v4.0 commit
and thus risk regressing all stable kernels.
Thanks,
Lukas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists