From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sandeen.net ([63.231.237.45]:43846 "EHLO sandeen.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726525AbfEUTUw (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 15:20:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] libfrog: fix bitmap return values References: <155839420081.68606.4573219764134939943.stgit@magnolia> <155839424514.68606.14562327454853103352.stgit@magnolia> <5caa6c9e-3a42-6c8e-101b-c198af77e765@sandeen.net> <20190521170103.GD5141@magnolia> <20190521191946.GA5657@infradead.org> From: Eric Sandeen Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 14:20:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190521191946.GA5657@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On 5/21/19 2:19 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:59:58PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> So yeah I'm of the opinion that unless it's kernel(-ish?) code it should be >> positive, and I can send a patch to clean up stuff that's not. >> >> I can be swayed by counterarguments if you have them. :) > > What speaks against everything is negative? It isn't like returning > positive errors really is a traditional userspace convention, as that > is return -1 (negative!) and look at errno.. Sorry, I wasn't clear - I meant returning negative errnos. That's the part that's not consistent. -Eric