Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc.

[Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>]

>> > >I'd like to lodge a bitter complaint about the return codes used by
>> > >queue_work() and related functions:
>> > >
>> > >	Why do the damn things return 0 for error and 1 for success???
>> > >	Why don't they use negative error codes for failure, like
>> > >	everything else in the kernel?!!
>> >
>> > It's a standard programming idiom:  return false (0) for failure, true
>> > (non-zero) for success.  Boolean.
>> 
>> There are at least 3 idioms:
>> 
>> 1) return 0 on success, -E on fail¹.
>> 2) return 1 on YES, 0 on NO.
>> 3) return valid pointer on OK, NULL on fail.

I wrote something up some time ago,
http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/vitalnix/trunk/src/doc/extra-aee.php?revision=1

>Functions can return values of many different kinds, and one of the most
>common is a value indicating whether the function succeeded or failed.  
>Such a value can be represented as a "status" integer (0 = success, -Exxx
>= failure) or a "succeeded" boolean (1 = success, 0 = failure).
>
>Mixing up these two sorts of representations is a fertile source of
>difficult-to-find bugs.  If the C language included a strong distinction
>between integers and booleans then the compiler would find these mistakes
>for us... but it doesn't.

Recently introduced "bool".



Jan Engelhardt
--