Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759351AbXKBTuj (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:50:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754039AbXKBTuc (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:50:32 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.228]:28996 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753837AbXKBTub (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:50:31 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Mg5BfuEaUQbhRRnGfsnTtFkPxz4r/chk/4LxtoHCwUZLcrhEXBYLrkZ5G0kp1+A8EPkAmRUenDVp5t2Gqz0ZxK8h3ZCxOzoale8jaxzNkHrsRuAb6+JRCLU1EhASrHPPL3GRK/Wmr2j8Xi9wNuXrfM1s6QLIBDUBNd14ugTaUWY= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:50:29 -0400 From: "Bob Copeland" To: "Dirk Hohndel" Subject: Re: [PATCH] add_partition silently ignored errors Cc: "Jens Axboe" , "Cornelia Huck" , "Andries Brouwer" , "Al Viro" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Linus Torvalds" In-Reply-To: <20071102192914.GA888@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071029154339.00512901@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20071029154849.GA24187@bigserver.hohndel.org> <20071030080742.GE4993@kernel.dk> <20071030100934.6d2a8f12@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20071030165608.GA2601@linux.intel.com> <20071030183112.7e860c23@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20071030225635.GA3401@linux.intel.com> <20071102130438.GC28340@kernel.dk> <20071102192914.GA888@linux.intel.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 24e3be2766e7785b Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1027 Lines: 24 On 11/2/07, Dirk Hohndel wrote: > > > @@ -554,8 +573,11 @@ int rescan_partitions(struct gendisk *disk, struct block_device *bdev) > > > if (from + size > get_capacity(disk)) { > > > printk(" %s: p%d exceeds device capacity\n", > > > disk->disk_name, p); > > > + return -EBUSY; [snip] > I was wondering about that myself - EBUSY seemed to be used in a couple of > other cases where there wasn't a clear match, but I think EOVERFLOW actually > might make more sense. Opinions? ISTR that some people wanted to keep going in this case rather than return an error, e.g. for forensic purposes... .. digging... here's a thread from last year: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/11/64 -Bob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/