On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 16:06 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 23:58 +0000, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:30 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > + * We return
> > > > + * 0 if there are no known bad blocks in the range
> > > > + * 1 if there are known bad block which are all acknowledged
> > > > + * -1 if there are bad blocks which have not yet been
> > > > acknowledged
> > > > in metadata.
> > > > + * plus the start/length of the first bad section we overlap.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > This comment should be docbook.
> >
> > Applicable to all your comments - (and they are all valid), I simply
> > copied over all this from md. I'm happy to make the changes to
> > comments,
> > and the other two things (see below) if that's the right thing to do
> > --
> > I just tried to keep my own changes to the original md badblocks
> > code
> > minimal.
> > Would it be better (for review-ability) if I made these changes in a
> > new
> > patch on top of this, or should I just squash them into this one?
>
> If you were moving it, that might be appropriate. However, this is
> effectively new code because you're not removing the original, so we
> should begin at least with a coherent API. (i.e. corrections to the
> original patch rather than incremental).
>
Patch 3 does remove the original code, but yes, I agree. Will send
another version.
Thanks for the review.
-Vishal��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
