From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <680c32ee-5dac-ab20-981a-bec134ca33c8@nvidia.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 15:11:00 +0200 Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH v10 03/10] admin: introduce group administration commands References: <20230209121221.15118-1-mst@redhat.com> <20230209121221.15118-4-mst@redhat.com> <20230212044245-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20230213031358-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <878rh1d9dz.fsf@redhat.com> From: Max Gurtovoy In-Reply-To: <878rh1d9dz.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Cornelia Huck , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Parav Pandit , "virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org" , "virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org" , "jasowang@redhat.com" , "sgarzare@redhat.com" , "stefanha@redhat.com" , "nrupal.jani@intel.com" , "Piotr.Uminski@intel.com" , "hang.yuan@intel.com" , "virtio@lists.oasis-open.org" , Zhu Lingshan , "pasic@linux.ibm.com" , Shahaf Shuler List-ID: On 13/02/2023 14:42, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13 2023, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > >> On 13/02/2023 10:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 02:54:47AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>> For some system calls and library functions (e.g., >>>>> getpriority(2)), -1 is a valid return on success. In such cases, >>>>> a successful return can be distinguished from an error return by >>>>> setting errno to zero before the call, and then, if the call >>>>> returns a status that indicates that an error may have occurred, >>>>> checking to see if errno has a nonzero value. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Description is already good enough to describe what they are. >>>>>> Can we please drop Linux wording? >>>>> >>>>> But why should we? It's where 22 comes from so this way people are not >>>>> wondering about the value, and it's somewhat helpful for Linux >>>>> developers. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I also think we should not mention Linux. I don't think it's mentioned >>>> currently in the spec and no good reason to do so now. >>> >>> But we do: fuse, input at least both do. >>> >>>> Also value of 22 is not mandatory for this EINVAL status code. It can be >>>> just 1 (the first number after the OK status). >>> >>> 22 makes it a tiny bit easier for kvm. So why not. >> >> Because people comment on that in the review :) and because a >> specification should be OS independent. >> 22 might be EINVAL in Linux but a success in MyOS is my lucky number is 22. >> >> not a big issue for me, but I prefer to have a cleaner spec than maybe >> simplify something in a very specific OS. > > Well, my take is: > - we have to pick *something* > - using EINVAL == 22 is very convenient for one of the most common (the > most common?) implementors > - noting that we're trying to follow what Linux uses makes it clear what > to pick for any new return codes > Can we agree on 22 without mentioning Linux ?