[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220930140531.r6txx6ujvvbrr7hh@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:05:31 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printf: Emit "SUCCESS" if NULL is passed for %pe
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:41:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 01:10:50PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > For code that emits a string representing a usual return value it's
> > convenient to have a 0 result in a string representation of success
> > instead of "00000000".
>
> This is a controversial change. For APIs that comes to my mind it means
> "OPTIONAL resource NOT FOUND, while no error happened". Doe it mean success?
> I don't think so.
OK, agreed. Would you feed such a value unchecked to %pe today (i.e.
without my patch)?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists