On 05/13/2013 06:16 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > Hi, > > In a previous discussion on lkml it was noted that the shrinkers use the > magic value "-1" to signal that something went wrong. > > This patch-set implements the suggestion of instead using errno.h values > to return something more meaningful. > > The first patch simply changes the check from -1 to any negative value and > updates the comment accordingly. > > The second patch updates the shrinkers to return an errno.h value instead > of -1. Since this one spans over many different areas I need input on what is > a meaningful return value. Right now I used -EBUSY on everything for > consitency. > > What do you say? Is this a good idea or does it make no sense at all? > > Thanks! >
Right now me and Dave are completely reworking the way shrinkers operate. I suggest, first of all, that you take a look at that cautiously. On the specifics of what you are doing here, what would be the benefit of returning something other than -1 ? Is there anything we would do differently for a return value lesser than 1? So far, shrink_slab behaves the same, you are just expanding the test. If you really want to push this through, I would suggest coming up with a more concrete reason for why this is wanted. -- 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/
