Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 22:39:31 -0500 From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at> Subject: Re: newfs: useless/bogus check if new last block can be accessed? Message-ID: <20030509223931.A75707@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200305100302.aa28788@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>; from iedowse@maths.tcd.ie on Sat, May 10, 2003 at 03:02:37AM %2B0100 References: <20030509203228.A62797@FreeBSD.org> <200305100302.aa28788@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> [ Date: 2003-05-09 ] [ w.r.t. Re: newfs: useless/bogus check if new last block can be accessed? ] > In message <20030509203228.A62797@FreeBSD.org>, Juli Mallett writes: > >(which went nowhere due to over-engineering, and too much faith...er, yeah, > >it went nowhere), one of the things I wanted to do was have a "naive" flag > >as part of an (undeveloped) generalised flags (external, not like MINE_) > >interface, which would let libufs do the exploding, if things went wrong. > > Something like the patch below should do the trick for now. This > puts back the old exit code and sector number information, but > relies on the undocumented (?) behaviour of bwrite() leaving a > sensible value in errno. That looks pretty sane. And bwrite is undocumented. All contracts are explicit for now. Once it's documented that changes. Thanx, juli. -- juli mallett. email: jmallett@freebsd.org; efnet: juli;
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030509223931.A75707>