On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 01:19:18AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > > > Last time I complained about some of the shrinker implementations but > > I'm not expecting them to be fixed in this series. However I still have > > questions about where -1 should be returned that I don't think were > > addressed so I'll repeat them. > > > > Note that the series try to keep the same behavior as we had before. > (modulo mistakes, spotting them are mostly welcome) > > So if we are changing any of this, maybe better done in a separate patch? > Ok, that's fair enough and a separate patch does make sense. I thought it was an oversight when the -1 return value was documented but not all callers were updated even though it looked appropriate. Slap a comment above the highlighted places suggesting that a return value of -1 be used instead so it does not get lost maybe? Whether you do that or not Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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
