[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+8MBbKn5DU22RHPYR=vKWpKd1aBu4dm5p57R5U5WTb7KCpMVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:10:18 -0800
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
To: Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...tfour.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14] x86, mce: Add memcpy_mcsafe()
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
>> But you return 0 == false for success and 1 == true for failure.
>
> Aaargh! -ETOOMUCHSHELLSCRIPTPROGRAMMING
>
> -Tony
Options to fix this:
1) Just change the comments in the code.
This seems like it would confuse people as I thing most people
would expect the "true" return to mean the copy succeeded.
2) Reverse the return values.
Better that option 1 - but doesn't leave scope to return a count
if some future user does want to know where the copy failed.
3) Change the return type back from "bool" to "int"
0 == success, non-zero == fail (with option to put the non-copied
byte count in later).
4) Something else
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists