Kent Overstreet <[email protected]> writes:
> Minor refactoring, to get rid of some duplicated code
>
> [[email protected]: fix warning]
> Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <[email protected]>
> Cc: Zach Brown <[email protected]>
> Cc: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mark Fasheh <[email protected]>
> Cc: Joel Becker <[email protected]>
> Cc: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
> Cc: Asai Thambi S P <[email protected]>
> Cc: Selvan Mani <[email protected]>
> Cc: Sam Bradshaw <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jeff Moyer <[email protected]>
> Cc: Al Viro <[email protected]>
> Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <[email protected]>
> Cc: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
The patch looks to preserve existing behaviour. However, the man page
and the code disagree about the return code in the event that there is
no cancelation routine (well, in the event that the iocb could not be
canceled):
ERRORS
EAGAIN The iocb specified was not canceled.
EFAULT One of the data structures points to invalid data.
EINVAL The AIO context specified by ctx_id is invalid.
ENOSYS io_cancel() is not implemented on this architecture.
The code (before and after the patch) returns EINVAL when the iocb was
not canceled. Should we fix the code or the docs, here?
For the patch:
Acked-by: Jeff Moyer <[email protected]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
