[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <vdd6yaz3opuhufbfhbkhwtfj4a3oiskem7o23n3axtzy5e74xp@fibgbwxospom>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:16:17 +0800
From: Coly Li <colyli@...nel.org>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Coly Li <i@...y.li>, Zheng Qixing <zhengqixing@...weicloud.com>,
axboe@...nel.dk, song@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
vishal.l.verma@...el.com, dave.jiang@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, dlemoal@...nel.org,
yanjun.zhu@...ux.dev, kch@...dia.com, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
zhengqixing@...wei.com, john.g.garry@...cle.com, geliang@...nel.org, xni@...hat.com,
colyli@...e.de, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
yangerkun@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] badblocks: return error if any badblock set fails
On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 09:12:53AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2025/02/21 18:12, Coly Li 写道:
> > So we don’t need to add a negative return value for partial success/failure?
> >
> > Coly Li.
>
> Yes, I think so. No one really use this value, and patch 10 clean this
> up by changing return type to bool.
OK, then it is fine to me.
It will be good to add a code comment that parital setting will be treated as failure.
Thanks.
--
Coly Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists