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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170622015546.q4okustbh4yyxwjr@thunk.org> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:55:46 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com> Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/32] ext4: change ext4_xattr_inode_iget() signature On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 02:21:20PM -0700, Tahsin Erdogan wrote: > In general, kernel functions indicate success/failure through their return > values. This function returns the status as an output parameter and reserves > the return value for the inode. Make it follow the general convention. > > Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com> The fact that we have several conventions for error passing, is due to the long history of the ext2/3/4 code base. In the long term, I'd actually like to see us gradually move everyhing to use the ERR_PTR convention. It's a bit more efficient for the common (no error) case, and it allows us to drop an extra parameter from the function signature. Still, it's incrementally better this way, so thanks, added to the ext4 patch queue. - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists