Re: [PATCH 1/3] xl: convert scheduling related return codes to EXIT_[SUCCESS|FAILURE]

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 12:03 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 10:56 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 10:30 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> 
> > > Harman, when you send a patch series, as you did here (thanks and
> > > good
> > > job doing it so quickly :-) ), you want to include a 'cover
> > > letter'. That
> > > is an introductory email, often labelled (usually automatically by
> > > git
> > > tools) as patch 0 of the series itself. In it, you give a brief
> > > explanation of what the series is meant at, and any kind of
> > > information
> > > you think the people reviewing the series should have, but that
> > > wouldn't
> > > fit in the various patches' changelogs, code comments, etc.
> > 
> > In particular in this case I would like to know whether all xl
> > functions
> > now use EXIT_SUCCESS/FAILURE or if there is still
> > inconsistencies/work to
> > be done.
> > 
> Exactly, Harman, these are the sort of things you'd include in a cover
> letter for a series like this.
> 
> > I don't see any existing use of of EXIT_* in xl*.
> > 
> I sent a patch turning one function into doing so just yesterday. :-)
> 
> We (me, you and Wei) talked about it a while back (see the changelog of
> that patch, it has the links):
> 
>  https://www.mail-archive.com/xen-devel@lists.xen.org/msg42850.html

Those links to previous discussions like are certainly the sort of
rationale which ought to appear in either a commit log (or a patch #0 if
one exists) as part of the rationale for a change.

Ian.