Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> It would be nice if we could return a struct consisting of the error and
> result. I'm not sure if this is allowed in C now or not. It didn't
> work when I tried it with gcc: it seems to consider a struct-valued
> function to be a void-valued.
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > This, btw, is why Linux returns error numbers as -Exxx instead of using
> > > "-1" and "errno" - I dislike the latter enormously.
> >
> > It's not just a matter of disliking it, it's also not r
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > It's not worth changing at this point, but for future reference it would
> > probably be much preferable to return the error code instead of the
> > horrible "error value through pointer access" method, which is usually
> > rather inefficient t
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > This, btw, is why Linux returns error numbers as -Exxx instead of using
> > "-1" and "errno" - I dislike the latter enormously.
>
> It's not just a matter of disliking it, it's also not reentrant.
??? Yes it is, if pointer
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> This, btw, is why Linux returns error numbers as -Exxx instead of using
> "-1" and "errno" - I dislike the latter enormously.
It's not just a matter of disliking it, it's also not reentrant.
> This is also why the VFS layer tends to use ERR_PTR/PTR_ERR/IS_ERR: it
> makes
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Russell King wrote:
>
> The only time that minix_new_inode sets *error is if it succeeds! The
> same applies to minix_mknod, minix_mkdir, and minix_symlink. With this
> fixed, the above oops no longer happens. Here is a patch to fix this.
> This makes minix follow the sam
6 matches
Mail list logo
