From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3F3CA9EAF for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:23:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E397920650 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:23:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2439796AbfJXQX2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:23:28 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0089.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.89]:48995 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405586AbfJXQX2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:23:28 -0400 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6CC182CF66E; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:23:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: vest79_1df99958b091f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2247 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.135.224]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 16:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] staging: exfat: Clean up return codes From: Joe Perches To: Valdis Kletnieks , Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:23:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20191024155327.1095907-1-Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> References: <20191024155327.1095907-1-Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.1-2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 11:53 -0400, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: > The code had its own non-standard FFS_FOO return codes. Go through > and convert them all the kernel standard -EFOO codes. > > Valdis Kletnieks (15): > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_FULL > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_NOTFOUND > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_DIRBUSY > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_PERMISSIONERR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_NAMETOOLONG > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_FILEEXIST > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_INVALIDPATH > staging: exfat: Clean up return code - FFS_MEMORYERR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_FORMATERR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_MEDIAERR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_EOF > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_INVALIDFID > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_ERROR > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - remove unused codes > staging: exfat: Clean up return codes - FFS_SUCCESS All well and good, but does converting the error code from positive to negative have any impact on any of the code paths that use these return values? if (error > 0) vs if (error < 0) ? If you've gone through all the return tests, then it would be nice to say so.