On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:06:24 -0800
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Chas.
>
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 09:04:10AM -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
> > I don't quite understand your comment. idr_pre_get() returns 0 in the
> > case of failure.
>
> So, if you do the following,
>
> int id1 =
Hello, Chas.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 09:04:10AM -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
> I don't quite understand your comment. idr_pre_get() returns 0 in the
> case of failure.
So, if you do the following,
int id1 = 0, id2 = 0;
if (!id1)
err = idr_get_new_abo
I don't quite understand your comment. idr_pre_get() returns 0 in the
case of failure.
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 17:20:10 -0800
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Convert to the much saner new idr interface. The existing code looks
> buggy to me - ID 0 is treated as no-ID but allocation specifies 0 as
> lower limit
Convert to the much saner new idr interface. The existing code looks
buggy to me - ID 0 is treated as no-ID but allocation specifies 0 as
lower limit and there's no error handling after parial success. This
conversion keeps the bugs unchanged.
Only compile tested.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
Cc:
4 matches
Mail list logo