linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: use standard block status symbolic names to check return value

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:   Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:17:20 +0800
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     kbusch@...nel.org, axboe@...com, sagi@...mberg.me,
        baolin.wang7@...il.com, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: use standard block status symbolic names to
 check return value

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 07:09:00AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 10:18:01AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > It's better to use the same symbol as the return to check return value,
> > and will always work in the unlikely event that the defines are reordered.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> 
> I'm really not sure this is worth it.  When designing the blk_status_t
> type keeping 0 as was a deliberate design decision.

OK. But there are some places use the BLK_STS_OK to validate, and some
places not in this driver, so I think we should keep code consistent?