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

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 17:39 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
>         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?!!
> 
> I've tripped over this at least twice, and on each occasion spent a
> considerable length of time trying to track down the problem. 

yeah, lets just flip the logic over, but combined with a rename so that
we dont surprise not-yet-in-tree code [and documentation/books].
queue_work() -> add_work() or something like that.

	Ingo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc.
    • From: Alan Stern <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] getsockopt() early argument sanity checking
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] cit_encrypt_iv/cit_decrypt_iv for ECB mode
• Previous by thread: Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc.
• Next by thread: [PATCH 2.6.17.9] USB: pl2303: removed support for OTi's DKU-5 clone cable
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]