lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.30 IDE 113
On Tue, Aug 06 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> Uz.ytkownik Jens Axboe napisa?:
> >On Tue, Aug 06 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> >
> >>device not per channel! If q->request_fn would properly return the
> >>error count instead of void, we could even get rid ot the
> >>checking for rq->errors after finishment... But well that's
> >>entierly different story.
> >
> >
> >That's nonsense! What exactly would you return from a request_fn after
> >having queued, eg, 20 commands? Error count is per request, anything
> >else would be stupid.
>
> Returning the error count in the case q->request_fn is called for
> a self submitted request like for example REQ_SPECIAL would be handy and
> well defined. For the cumulative case it would of course make sense to
> return the cumulative error count. Tough not very meaningfull, it would
> indicate the occurrence of the error very fine.

It's much nicer to maintain a sane API that doesn't depend on stuff like
the above. Cumulative error count, come on, you can't possibly be
serious?!

--
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.046 / U:1.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site