On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 14:27 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21 2007, Rusty Russell wrote: > > I shall look through the code and see if I can figure out how to fix it. > > I'm assuming from your response that there's not some strange reason to > > preserve current behaviour. > > It surely sounds like a bug, if you issue ioctl(fd, CDROMEJECT), the > driver sees it and returns -ENOTTY, but userland sees a 0 retval. So if > you have time, please do poke at it a bit. OK, error (-ENOTTY) gets to blk_end_sync_rq(), but nothing happens to it. This patch makes the ioctl return -EIO: I can't see a way to pass the errno back properly. diff -r 99e125262d6a block/ll_rw_blk.c --- a/block/ll_rw_blk.c Sat Sep 22 15:37:22 2007 +1000 +++ b/block/ll_rw_blk.c Sun Sep 23 16:43:42 2007 +1000 @@ -2792,6 +2792,9 @@ void blk_end_sync_rq(struct request *rq, rq->end_io_data = NULL; __blk_put_request(rq->q, rq); + if (error) + rq->errors++; + /* * complete last, if this is a stack request the process (and thus * the rq pointer) could be invalid right after this complete() _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
