[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzbbLZaWvg+vTEKrfzZkwb=iAVUK5cZu2LxdbevZiGJ2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:59:38 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: syscall_get_error() && TS_ checks
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Once again, it is only used in arch/x86/kernel/signal.c by do_signal() and
> handle_signal(). We do not care if mmap() returns a valid pointer with the
> high bit set, regs-ax can't be confused with -ERESTART code.
Immaterial. If the function is called "get_error()", it sure as hell
shouldn't return a random non-error value.
Code should make sense, otherwise it's not going to be maintainable.
Naming matters. If the code doesn't match the name of the function,
that's a bug regardless of whether it has semantic effects or not in
the end - because somebody will eventually depend on the _expected_
semantics.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists