On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Marciniszyn, Mike
wrote:
>> > Subject: [PATCH] fix return value error
>> >
>>
>> I checked returns in configfs (-ENOMEM), proc (-ENOENT), proc-sys (-
>> ENOMEM), ramfs (-ENOSPC), vfs (-ENOMEM).
>>
>> Not entirely consistent but this matches the majority.
>>
>> I ag
> > Subject: [PATCH] fix return value error
> >
>
> I checked returns in configfs (-ENOMEM), proc (-ENOENT), proc-sys (-
> ENOMEM), ramfs (-ENOSPC), vfs (-ENOMEM).
>
> Not entirely consistent but this matches the majority.
>
> I agree -EPERM is pretty misleading.
>
> Acked-by: Mike Marciniszyn
> Subject: [PATCH] fix return value error
>
I checked returns in configfs (-ENOMEM), proc (-ENOENT), proc-sys (-ENOMEM),
ramfs (-ENOSPC), vfs (-ENOMEM).
Not entirely consistent but this matches the majority.
I agree -EPERM is pretty misleading.
Acked-by: Mike Marciniszyn
--
To unsubscribe fr
On 10/14/2015 2:59 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Heloise NH wrote:
>Signed-off-by: Heloise NH
The patch is a correct one, however can you update the subject and
description to be more informative?
Please add that new_inode() function can fail for allocation only.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Heloise NH wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Heloise NH
The patch is a correct one, however can you update the subject and
description to be more informative?
Please add that new_inode() function can fail for allocation only.
> ---
> drivers/infiniband/hw/ipath/ipath_fs.
5 matches
Mail list logo