linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86, numa: cleanup x86_acpi_numa

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:28 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86, numa: cleanup x86_acpi_numa_init()

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 08:03:48PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > make it more readable. put valid checking together.
> > 
> > Also restore old acpi_numa_init(). we don't need to touch it
> > because already have x86 own wrapper.
> > 
> > We can limit change to x86 code only.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
> 
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>

I'm not taking this one.  It's pointless and to me it seems worse.
Why does the function return the count?  What difference do the counts
of 5 and 10 make to the caller?  All it can indicate is failure or
success and 0 and -errno are much better return values for that.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/