On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 8:52 PM Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > I assume that sooner or later we'll have a reason to include it anyway, > so that might honestly be the best option.
Sounds good. > Do you want to post it as a proper patch? It seems to depend on your > errno patch, but that shouldn't be a problem because we still want that > one, too. Yes, I wrote it as an addendum, as a kind of "let's see later what's best"; that's also why the patch I posted uses "mod libc" for the errno values. (The attachment gives away the date, too :)). I'll clean up everything and add errno::into_neg_errno(); it should take both an unsigned Ok value or Ok(()), and will return i32 or i64. Paolo
