[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1bjp1ge13.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 01:01:05 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: linan666@...weicloud.com
Cc: <song@...nel.org>, <yukuai3@...wei.com>, <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
<hare@...e.de>, <axboe@...nel.dk>, <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <bvanassche@....org>,
<hch@...radead.org>, <filipe.c.maia@...il.com>, <yangerkun@...wei.com>,
<yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] md: Fix the return value of mddev_stack_new_rdev
> In mddev_stack_new_rdev(), if the integrity profile check fails, it
> returns -ENXIO, which means "No such device or address". This is
> inaccurate and can mislead users. Change it to return -EINVAL.
> Fixes: c6e56cf6b2e7 ("block: move integrity information into queue_limits")
Returning -ENXIO predates the above commit by many, many years. Changing
the return value might break applications which rely on the original
behavior.
In case of a stacking failure, an appropriate message is logged and the
function returns an errno. How is that misleading?
--
Martin K. Petersen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists