Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 2014-07-22 08:29:32: [..] > Subject: > > [PATCH] s390: Fix me in dasd_eer.c > > This patch changes return type to EMEDUIMTYPE in function, dasd_eer_enable > for when checking if the medium has no errors according to this function. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c > index 21ef63c..08ee040 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eer.c > @@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ int dasd_eer_enable(struct dasd_device *device) > return 0; > > if (!device->discipline || strcmp(device->discipline->name, "ECKD")) > - return -EPERM; /* FIXME: -EMEDIUMTYPE ? */ > + return -EMEDIUMTYPE; /* FIXME: -EMEDIUMTYPE ? */ > > cqr = dasd_kmalloc_request(DASD_ECKD_MAGIC, 1 /* SNSS */, > SNSS_DATA_SIZE, device); > -- > 1.9.1 > Hm, after some consideration, I have to disagree with your suggestion. If you try to enable EER on an FBA device, you will get the following result with current code: $ echo 1 > eer_enabled -bash: echo: write error: Operation not permitted and with your code the following: $ echo 1 > eer_enabled -bash: echo: write error: Wrong medium type When I wrote this code, I was not sure which one is better. But today I say that the 'Operation not permitted' is more to the point. An FBA device has no (changable) medium, so what could be wrong about its type? Could be confusing. >From your patch description I do not really get why you want to change the return code. Why do you think that EMEDIUMTYPE is better than EPERM? Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards Stefan Weinhuber -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
