Re: [PATCH 02/25] block: remove the blk_execute_rq return value

2017-04-18 Thread h...@lst.de
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:01:09AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > Are you respinning this series for 4.12? Yes, I think I got enough feedback by now to resend it. I'll try to get it out today.

Re: [PATCH 02/25] block: remove the blk_execute_rq return value

2017-04-17 Thread Jens Axboe
On 04/14/2017 02:22 AM, h...@lst.de wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:03:22PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> That blk_execute_rq() call can only be reached if a few lines above 0 was >> assigned to the "error" variable. Since nfsd4_scsi_identify_device() returns >> the value of the "error"

Re: [PATCH 02/25] block: remove the blk_execute_rq return value

2017-04-14 Thread h...@lst.de
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:03:22PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > That blk_execute_rq() call can only be reached if a few lines above 0 was > assigned to the "error" variable. Since nfsd4_scsi_identify_device() returns > the value of the "error" variable I think -EIO should be assigned to that >

Re: [PATCH 02/25] block: remove the blk_execute_rq return value

2017-04-13 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 17:39 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/blocklayout.c b/fs/nfsd/blocklayout.c > index 92b4b41d19d2..4b72fdf67548 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/blocklayout.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/blocklayout.c > @@ -242,8 +242,8 @@ static int nfsd4_scsi_identify_device(struct

Re: [PATCH 02/25] block: remove the blk_execute_rq return value

2017-04-06 Thread Johannes Thumshirn
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:39:21PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The function only returns -EIO if rq->errors is non-zero, which is not > very useful and lets a large number of callers ignore the return value. > > Just let the callers figure out their error themselves. > > Signed-off-by: