On Thu, May 13 2010, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On 05/13/2010 06:06 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > I'm not sure this is such a good interface ... it sounds very error > > prone for what is effectively a binary lock/unlock. > > Well, the original block interface was like that. It has been used as > binary switch tho. The requested capacity is always ~0ULL and return > value smaller than the current capacity is ignored. I'm all for > dropping the capacity parameter and the return value from > ->set_capacity() so that it just unlocks native capacity and directly > sets the new capacity. Jens? Is there a valid case for setting the capacity less than the unlocked capacity? I would think the unlock/lock bool api is saner. -- Jens Axboe -- 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
