From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: From: Cornelia Huck In-Reply-To: <680c32ee-5dac-ab20-981a-bec134ca33c8@nvidia.com> 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> <680c32ee-5dac-ab20-981a-bec134ca33c8@nvidia.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 14:13:43 +0100 Message-ID: <87wn4lbtdk.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [virtio] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH v10 03/10] admin: introduce group administration commands Content-Type: text/plain To: Max Gurtovoy , "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 Mon, Feb 13 2023, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > 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 ? See my third point above: we want people to be aware why we chose 22, so any new values will match up as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php