linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] io_uring: Redefined the meaning of io_alloc_async

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]

Message-ID: <ZKzjTg1xaoikN9Hh@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 22:06:22 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>
Cc:     Lu Hongfei <luhongfei@...o.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        opensource.kernel@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: Redefined the meaning of io_alloc_async_data's
 return value

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:58:58PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> practice to change the symbol, making the change hard to miss.  Or
> make the function return int instead of bool, which preserves the
> interface and is a common C idiom.  Or leave it as it is, which is quite
> readable already..

Yeah, returning -ENOMEM and 0 would make a lot more sense here.  But I'd
only change it if we have any good reason to touch the interface anyway.