Re: [PATCH] 2.5.34 ufs/super.c

[Linus Torvalds]

This patch is definitely correct, but on the other hand I really think
that the calling convention of sb_set_blocksize() is wrong, and instead of
returning "size for success or zero for failure ", it should return "error
code for failure or zero for success".

There's just no point to returning the same size we just passed in.

And making that calling convention the new one would make the current UFS
code be the _right_ one.

Al, comments? Why the strange calling convention?

		Linus

----
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Skip Ford wrote:
>
> I've needed this patch since 2.5.32 to successfully mount a UFS
> partition.
> 
> --- linux/fs/ufs/super.c~	Mon Sep  9 16:39:52 2002
> +++ linux/fs/ufs/super.c	Mon Sep  9 16:39:57 2002
> @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@
>  	}
>  	
>  again:	
> -	if (sb_set_blocksize(sb, block_size)) {
> +	if (!sb_set_blocksize(sb, block_size)) {
>  		printk(KERN_ERR "UFS: failed to set blocksize\n");
>  		goto failed;
>  	}
> 
>