linux-kernel - Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1156071981.19017.60.camel@earth>
Date:	Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:06:21 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Kai Petzke <wpp@...ie.physik.tu-berlin.de>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc.

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 17:39 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
>         Why do the damn things return 0 for error and 1 for success???
>         Why don't they use negative error codes for failure, like 
>         everything else in the kernel?!!
> 
> I've tripped over this at least twice, and on each occasion spent a
> considerable length of time trying to track down the problem. 

yeah, lets just flip the logic over, but combined with a rename so that
we dont surprise not-yet-in-tree code [and documentation/books].
queue_work() -> add_work() or something like that.

	Ingo

-
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/