netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sparx5: fix return values to correctly use bool

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: <YxYpjjYPK6lQzGAw@lunn.ch>
Date:   Mon, 5 Sep 2022 18:53:34 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
        Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sparx5: fix return values to correctly use
 bool

On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 05:33:44PM +0200, Casper Andersson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2022-09-02 18:41, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 10:45:21AM +0200, Casper Andersson wrote:
> > > Function was declared to return bool, but used error return strategy (0
> > > for success, else error). Now correctly uses bool to indicate whether
> > > the entry was found or not.
> > 
> > I think it would be better to actually return an int. < 0 error, 0 =
> > not foumd > 1 found. You can then return ETIMEDOUT etc.
> > 
> >     Andrew
> 
> I can submit a new version with this. But since the commit title will be
> different I assume I should make it a new patch and not a v2.

I don't think it matters if it is a new patch, or a v2. There is some
attempts to track patches through their revisions, but subjects do
change as patches get revised, so it is never a precise things.

       Andrew