md: Return proper error rather than EIO.
PATCH 4/5 md: Return proper error rather than EIO.
Signed-off-by Jianpeng Ma <[email protected]>
--- drivers/md/raid1.c | 4 ++-- drivers/md/raid5.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
drivers/md/raid1.c +2 -2
@@ -2799,12 +2799,12 @@ static int run(struct mddev *mddev)if (mddev->level !=1 ) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid1:%s: raid level not set to mirroring (%d)\n" ,mdname (mddev), mddev->level); -return -EIO ; +return -EINVAL ; }if (mddev->reshape_position != MaxSector) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid1:%s: reshape_position set but not supported\n" ,mdname (mddev)); -return -EIO ; +return -EINVAL ; }/* * copy the already verified devices into our private RAID1
drivers/md/raid5.c +2 -2
@@ -5088,7 +5088,7 @@ static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev) && mddev->new_level != 6) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid:%s: raid level not set to 4/5/6 (%d)\n" ,mdname (mddev), mddev->new_level); -return ERR_PTR (-EIO ); +return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); } if ((mddev->new_level == 5 && !algorithm_valid_raid5(mddev->new_layout)) ||
@@ -5096,7 +5096,7 @@ static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev) && !algorithm_valid_raid6(mddev->new_layout))) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid:%s: layout %d not supported\n" ,mdname (mddev), mddev->new_layout); -return ERR_PTR (-EIO ); +return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); }if (mddev->new_level ==6 && mddev->raid_disks <4 ) { printk(KERN_ERR "md/raid:%s: not enough configured devices (%d, minimum 4)\n",
Signature · 1 line
1.7.9.5
Quoted 39 lines · On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:28:30 +0800 majianpeng <[email protected]> wrote:
Signed-off-by Jianpeng Ma <[email protected]>--- drivers/md/raid1.c | 4 ++-- drivers/md/raid5.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)drivers/md/raid1.c +2
-2@@ -2799,12 +2799,12 @@ static int run(struct mddev *mddev)if (mddev->level !=1 ) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid1:%s: raid level not set to mirroring (%d)\n" ,mdname (mddev), mddev->level); -return -EIO ; +return -EINVAL ; }if (mddev->reshape_position != MaxSector) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid1:%s: reshape_position set but not supported\n" ,mdname (mddev)); -return -EIO ; +return -EINVAL ; }/* * copy the already verified devices into our private RAID1 drivers/md/raid5.c +1
-1@@ -5088,7 +5088,7 @@ static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev) && mddev->new_level != 6) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid:%s: raid level not set to 4/5/6 (%d)\n" ,mdname (mddev), mddev->new_level); -return ERR_PTR (-EIO ); +return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); } if ((mddev->new_level == 5 && !algorithm_valid_raid5(mddev->new_layout)) ||
drivers/md/raid5.c static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev) · line 5102
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/md/raid5.c +1
-1@@ -5096,7 +5096,7 @@ static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev) && !algorithm_valid_raid6(mddev->new_layout))) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid:%s: layout %d not supported\n" ,mdname (mddev), mddev->new_layout); -return ERR_PTR (-EIO ); +return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); }if (mddev->new_level ==6 && mddev->raid_disks <4 ) { printk(KERN_ERR "md/raid:%s: not enough configured devices (%d, minimum 4)\n",
One doesn't just randomly change error return codes.
Maybe the current ones are "wrong", but they have been that way for many years so they are effectively part of the API. So they are "right" be definition, even if they seem wrong.
NeilBrown
Quoted 47 lines · On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:28:30 +0800 majianpeng <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 46 lines
Signed-off-by Jianpeng Ma <[email protected]>--- drivers/md/raid1.c | 4 ++-- drivers/md/raid5.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)drivers/md/raid1.c +2
-2@@ -2799,12 +2799,12 @@ static int run(struct mddev *mddev)if (mddev->level !=1 ) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid1:%s: raid level not set to mirroring (%d)\n" ,mdname (mddev), mddev->level); -return -EIO ; +return -EINVAL ; }if (mddev->reshape_position != MaxSector) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid1:%s: reshape_position set but not supported\n" ,mdname (mddev)); -return -EIO ; +return -EINVAL ; }/* * copy the already verified devices into our private RAID1 drivers/md/raid5.c +2
-2@@ -5088,7 +5088,7 @@ static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev) && mddev->new_level != 6) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid:%s: raid level not set to 4/5/6 (%d)\n" ,mdname (mddev), mddev->new_level); -return ERR_PTR (-EIO ); +return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); } if ((mddev->new_level == 5 && !algorithm_valid_raid5(mddev->new_layout)) ||@@ -5096,7 +5096,7 @@ static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev) && !algorithm_valid_raid6(mddev->new_layout))) {printk (KERN_ERR "md/raid:%s: layout %d not supported\n" ,mdname (mddev), mddev->new_layout); -return ERR_PTR (-EIO ); +return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); }
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/md/raid5.c static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev) · line 5102
Quoted 2 lines
drivers/md/raid5.c +0
-0if (mddev->new_level ==6 && mddev->raid_disks <4 ) { printk(KERN_ERR "md/raid:%s: not enough configured devices (%d, minimum 4)\n",One doesn't just randomly change error return codes.
Maybe the current ones are "wrong", but they have been that way for many years so they are effectively part of the API. So they are "right" be definition, even if they seem wrong.
Yes, i agree with your point.
For func setup_conf,there was alreday EINVAL, so modify EIO to EINVAL isn't add a new return code. I think for upper caller no effect.
For func run, the caller alse had EINVAL.So modify had no effect.
Jianpeng
Quoted 2 lines
NeilBrown