Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 05:15:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 05:15:07 -0500 Received: from mailrelay1.lrz-muenchen.de ([129.187.254.101]:5261 "EHLO mailrelay1.lrz-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 05:14:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:14:49 +0100 (MET) From: Oliver.Neukum@lrz.uni-muenchen.de X-X-Sender: ui222bq@sun4.lrz-muenchen.de To: Jeff Garzik cc: Oliver Neukum , Axel Kittenberger , , Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: Patch, forward release() return values to the close() call In-Reply-To: <3C99A54D.1050206@mandrakesoft.com> Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Oliver Neukum wrote: > > >On Thursday 21 March 2002 09:27, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > >>Whoops, my apologies. The patch looks ok to me. > >> > >>I read your text closely and the patch not close enough. As I said, it > >>is indeed wrong for a device driver to fail f_op->release(), "fail" > >>being defined as leaving fd state lying around, assuming that the system > >>will fail the fput(). > >> > >>But your patch merely propagates a return value, not change behavior, > >>which seems sane to me. > >> > > > >Hi, > > > >close() does not directly map to release(). > >If you want your device to return error > >information reliably, you need to implement flush(). > > > > Agreed. > > I still think propagating f_op->release's return value is a good idea, > though. > > Jeff Probably. Throwing away information without need is bad. Regards Oliver - 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/