Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:01:00 +0200, Tejun Heo said: >> Ah.. just one more thing. >> >> I think it would be easier on the application if the written timeout >> value is cropped if it's over the maximum instead of failing the >> write. > > Which is better, failing the write so the application *knows* there is a > problem, or letting the application proceed with a totally incorrect idea of > what the value is set to? It depends. As -EINVAL either results in program failure or no protection for the event. > For instance, what happens if the program tries to set 100, it's silently > clamped to 10, and it then tries to set a timer for itself to '90% of the > value'? It might be in for an unpleasant surprise when it finds out that > it's overshot by 81.... Hitting the limit would be a pretty rare occasion and which way we go it's not gonna be too pretty. e.g. Let's say a program calculates timeout according to some algorithm which 99.9% of the time stays in the limit but once in the blue moon hits the ceiling. Given the characteristics of the problem and very high limit value, I think it's better to have cropped value. How about returning -OVERFLOW while still setting the timeout to the maximum? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
