On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> >On Thursday 21 March 2002 09:27, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >>Whoops, my apologies. The patch looks ok to me.
> >>
> >>I read your text closely and the patch not close enough. As I said, it
> >>is indeed wrong for a device driver to fail f_op->release(), "fail"
> >>being defined as leaving fd state lying around, assuming that the system
> >>will fail the fput().
> >>
> >>But your patch merely propagates a return value, not change behavior,
> >>which seems sane to me.
> >>
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >close() does not directly map to release().
> >If you want your device to return error
> >information reliably, you need to implement flush().
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
> I still think propagating f_op->release's return value is a good idea,
> though.
>
> Jeff
Probably. Throwing away information without need is bad.
Regards
Oliver
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 23 2002 - 22:00:24 EST