This patch changes return type to EMEDUIMTYPE in function, dasd_eer_enable
for when checking if the medium has no errors according to this function.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <[email protected]>
---
drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
index 21ef63c..08ee040 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
@@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ int dasd_eer_enable(struct dasd_device *device)
return 0;
if (!device->discipline || strcmp(device->discipline->name, "ECKD"))
- return -EPERM; /* FIXME: -EMEDIUMTYPE ? */
+ return -EMEDIUMTYPE; /* FIXME: -EMEDIUMTYPE ? */
cqr = dasd_kmalloc_request(DASD_ECKD_MAGIC, 1 /* SNSS */,
SNSS_DATA_SIZE, device);
--
1.9.1
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 02:29:32 -0400
Nicholas Krause <[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch changes return type to EMEDUIMTYPE in function, dasd_eer_enable
> for when checking if the medium has no errors according to this function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <[email protected]>
What distributions have you tested this with and what configurations?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:18 AM, One Thousand Gnomes
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 02:29:32 -0400
> Nicholas Krause <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This patch changes return type to EMEDUIMTYPE in function, dasd_eer_enable
>> for when checking if the medium has no errors according to this function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <[email protected]>
>
> What distributions have you tested this with and what configurations?
I have not tested this patch but based on the logical statements this
seems to be
correct.
Nick
Nicholas Krause <[email protected]> wrote on 2014-07-22 08:29:32:
[..]
> Subject:
>
> [PATCH] s390: Fix me in dasd_eer.c
>
> This patch changes return type to EMEDUIMTYPE in function,
dasd_eer_enable
> for when checking if the medium has no errors according to this
function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
> index 21ef63c..08ee040 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
> @@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ int dasd_eer_enable(struct dasd_device *device)
> return 0;
>
> if (!device->discipline || strcmp(device->discipline->name, "ECKD"))
> - return -EPERM; /* FIXME: -EMEDIUMTYPE ? */
> + return -EMEDIUMTYPE; /* FIXME: -EMEDIUMTYPE ? */
>
> cqr = dasd_kmalloc_request(DASD_ECKD_MAGIC, 1 /* SNSS */,
> SNSS_DATA_SIZE, device);
> --
> 1.9.1
>
Hm, after some consideration, I have to disagree with your suggestion.
If you try to enable EER on an FBA device, you will get the following
result with current code:
$ echo 1 > eer_enabled
-bash: echo: write error: Operation not permitted
and with your code the following:
$ echo 1 > eer_enabled
-bash: echo: write error: Wrong medium type
When I wrote this code, I was not sure which one is better. But today I
say
that the 'Operation not permitted' is more to the point. An FBA device
has no (changable) medium, so what could be wrong about its type?
Could be confusing.
>From your patch description I do not really get why you want to change the
return code. Why do you think that EMEDIUMTYPE is better than EPERM?
Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind regards
Stefan Weinhuber
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Stefan Weinhuber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nicholas Krause <[email protected]> wrote on 2014-07-22 08:29:32:
>
> [..]
>> Subject:
>>
>> [PATCH] s390: Fix me in dasd_eer.c
>>
>> This patch changes return type to EMEDUIMTYPE in function,
> dasd_eer_enable
>> for when checking if the medium has no errors according to this
> function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
> b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
>> index 21ef63c..08ee040 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c
>> @@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ int dasd_eer_enable(struct dasd_device *device)
>> return 0;
>>
>> if (!device->discipline || strcmp(device->discipline->name, "ECKD"))
>> - return -EPERM; /* FIXME: -EMEDIUMTYPE ? */
>> + return -EMEDIUMTYPE; /* FIXME: -EMEDIUMTYPE ? */
>>
>> cqr = dasd_kmalloc_request(DASD_ECKD_MAGIC, 1 /* SNSS */,
>> SNSS_DATA_SIZE, device);
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>
> Hm, after some consideration, I have to disagree with your suggestion.
> If you try to enable EER on an FBA device, you will get the following
> result with current code:
>
> $ echo 1 > eer_enabled
> -bash: echo: write error: Operation not permitted
>
> and with your code the following:
>
> $ echo 1 > eer_enabled
> -bash: echo: write error: Wrong medium type
>
> When I wrote this code, I was not sure which one is better. But today I
> say
> that the 'Operation not permitted' is more to the point. An FBA device
> has no (changable) medium, so what could be wrong about its type?
> Could be confusing.
>
> From your patch description I do not really get why you want to change the
> return code. Why do you think that EMEDIUMTYPE is better than EPERM?
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
>
> Stefan Weinhuber
>
Stefan,
>From my reading seemed more like EMEDUIMTYPE return but seems I was
wrong here. If you want I can remove the fix me message in a patch if you
want to keep this return type.
Regards Nick