On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:16:33 +0200 Oskar Andero <oskar.and...@sonymobile.com> wrote:
> In a previous discussion on lkml it was noted that the shrinkers use the > magic value "-1" to signal that something went wrong. > > This patch-set implements the suggestion of instead using errno.h values > to return something more meaningful. > > The first patch simply changes the check from -1 to any negative value and > updates the comment accordingly. > > The second patch updates the shrinkers to return an errno.h value instead > of -1. Since this one spans over many different areas I need input on what is > a meaningful return value. Right now I used -EBUSY on everything for > consitency. > > What do you say? Is this a good idea or does it make no sense at all? I don't see much point in it, really. Returning an errno implies that the errno will eventually be returned to userspace. But that isn't the case, so such a change is somewhat misleading. If we want the capability to return more than a binary yes/no message to callers then yes, we could/should enumerate the shrinker return values. But as that is a different concept from errnos, it should be done with a different and shrinker-specific namespace. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
