On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 01:21:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > We *must* handle partial returns by returning "success". And we do, > except for our _confusion_ about ->readdir() returning error and that > somehow "overriding" the fact that it already returned non-errors earlier > through the callback. > > All your blathering about "positive values as well" seems to ttoally > misunderstand how readdir() works. We absolutely do *not* need positive > return values, because the fact is, the only positive return value we ever > need is the "we already filled _earlier_ buffers". And that's the one > that we already do. > > The fact is, NO ERROR VALUE CAN POSSIBLY MATTER if we already returned one > or more entries to getdents/readdir(). We should return a success value. Would you care to grep for vfs_readdir() in the tree? It's not just sys_getdents(); for better of worse the thing had become a general-purpose iterator. And I'm not suggesting to pass the damn thing to caller of sys_getdents(). At all. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
