On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 16:23 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27 2017 at 2:33am -0400, h...@lst.de wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:41:27PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 09:40 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > this series has some prep
On Thu, Apr 27 2017 at 2:33am -0400,
h...@lst.de wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:41:27PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 09:40 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > this series has some prep patches for my work to have proper, type
> > > checked block
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:41:27PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 09:40 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > this series has some prep patches for my work to have proper, type
> > checked block errors codes. One fallout of that is that we need to
> > get rid of how dm
On Wed, Apr 26 2017 at 2:41pm -0400,
Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 09:40 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > this series has some prep patches for my work to have proper, type
> > checked block errors codes. One fallout of that is that we need to
>
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 09:40 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> this series has some prep patches for my work to have proper, type
> checked block errors codes. One fallout of that is that we need to
> get rid of how dm overloads a few return values with either internal
> positive error codes or
Hi Mike,
this series has some prep patches for my work to have proper, type
checked block errors codes. One fallout of that is that we need to
get rid of how dm overloads a few return values with either internal
positive error codes or negative errno values. This patches does
that, which