* Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 08:19:13AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 11/27/13, 4:57 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >Okay, I thought this was an intentional 'all or nothing' interface -
> > >but looking at the readn() users they can tolerate partial results
> > >just fine.
> >
> > I believe that is the intent -- an all or nothing interface.
>
> all the users either checks the returned value with the size
> or do (ret < 0) and fail
so, a 'ret < 0' check would actually be sensitive to whether readn()
is an all-or-nothing interface (today), or a partial interface (the
suggestion).
So it appears keeping it all-or-nothing (i.e. my patch) is the right
approach.
> and one instance in the read_attr does not check anything and
> blindly hopes it will read all ;-)
>
> I have similar patch that also change callers to use proper ssize_t
> instead of int.. I can rebase and send it separately or combine it
> with yours.. let me know
Sure ... I just noticed a few patterns. Feel free to use all (or none
;-) of my patch in your series.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
