On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 04:16:30PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:11:05PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:41:32PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:34:51PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > > Random cleanup - this code was duplicated and it's not really specific > > > > to md. > > > > > > > > Also added the ability to return the actual error code. > > > > > > Who is going to make use of actual error code and why checking > > > BIO_UPTODATE is not sufficient (as existing code is doing)? > > > > Some things do, though it's not common and I forget where I saw it - > > checking for -ENOTSUPPORTED vs. other stuff > > May be we can introduce "submit_bio_ret" stuff when we find the actual > user in the series. Justifying code change becomes easier. Eh, IMO as generic code it's just better/more sensible that way; bio_endio() does pass an actual error code, so the sync version should pass it up too. Otherwise it's a needless inconsistency. Honestly I would prefer sticking an error field in struct bio. That'd be useful for other things, too. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
