Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-16 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:52:05 +0200 Oskar Andero wrote: > > If we want the capability to return more than a binary yes/no message > > to callers then yes, we could/should enumerate the shrinker return > > values. But as that is a different concept from errnos, it should be > > done with a differ

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-16 Thread Glauber Costa
On 05/16/2013 12:20 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > On 16:49 Wed 15 May , Glauber Costa wrote: >> On 05/15/2013 06:47 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: >>> On 16:18 Wed 15 May , Glauber Costa wrote: On 05/15/2013 06:10 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > On 17:03 Tue 14 May , Glauber Costa wrote: >>

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-16 Thread Oskar Andero
On 16:49 Wed 15 May , Glauber Costa wrote: > On 05/15/2013 06:47 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > > On 16:18 Wed 15 May , Glauber Costa wrote: > >> On 05/15/2013 06:10 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > >>> On 17:03 Tue 14 May , Glauber Costa wrote: > On 05/13/2013 06:16 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: >

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-16 Thread Oskar Andero
On 01:05 Thu 16 May , Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:16:33 +0200 Oskar Andero > wrote: > > > 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

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-15 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:16:33 +0200 Oskar Andero wrote: > 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 meani

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-15 Thread Glauber Costa
On 05/15/2013 06:47 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > On 16:18 Wed 15 May , Glauber Costa wrote: >> On 05/15/2013 06:10 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: >>> On 17:03 Tue 14 May , Glauber Costa wrote: On 05/13/2013 06:16 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > Hi, > > In a previous discussion on lkml it w

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-15 Thread Oskar Andero
On 16:18 Wed 15 May , Glauber Costa wrote: > On 05/15/2013 06:10 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > > On 17:03 Tue 14 May , Glauber Costa wrote: > >> 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

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-15 Thread Glauber Costa
On 05/15/2013 06:10 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > On 17:03 Tue 14 May , Glauber Costa wrote: >> 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

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-15 Thread Oskar Andero
On 17:03 Tue 14 May , Glauber Costa wrote: > 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 inste

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers

2013-05-14 Thread Glauber Costa
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