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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 49951C33CA2 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 01:04:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4942067D for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 01:04:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="K4rKxVe3" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727237AbgAIBES (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 20:04:18 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f44.google.com ([209.85.216.44]:53775 "EHLO mail-pj1-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727082AbgAIBES (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 20:04:18 -0500 Received: by mail-pj1-f44.google.com with SMTP id n96so371404pjc.3 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:04:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RoBZPYJ2ZGHXkJ0X6/lMhjhbUJnpmZcpJUN34I/umOI=; b=K4rKxVe3osyi0eNTB5IYkJGNjYxWHflUhmDo7nlYU56emydmO4SF6qSh9uJW6+0PZC FujcJPiDWCoT5OuZstg2rYg0+IwKe8yxHswxxaaVKrg0p8CNeD201TzdAr4hD8ALGdSE vWyHi4D3VYrEQBnjnx5qFqUuvsV+CPTgwSOo472MLD5rygjbxnxi4zuGZqv7jrggcis2 e5Y8aMzDNIu00CeYOhDkqohcOULPoMS8qDhOPDTzrHA93TeJbDiAVWyKwIsP1oXb5GgQ IhPcL19HH2NeRj4NBfapGDz4G17fmsUCZoPdc7rwtson9Fu7HoVMjYVAcPJkNBVmneZc kaAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=RoBZPYJ2ZGHXkJ0X6/lMhjhbUJnpmZcpJUN34I/umOI=; b=uCHd7tAZMACFTNuhCdwU8ztVruz4p+dDzfYTm5q1HaW/V9S4wjTCug2sNyfpfS6oM0 jyYfI3LGxaABeTNyhEPTOQ1JBqw7kfoDxB/KkIPjckLX0ui9hJ4GgKJ7v2otlb975Skd yebubg8Za/DaPN2EBh8WIhObGxiD0EQ10LqzPBJwJOPd8qD53C3onsUZVkqFibRvgqnv s6riWHEoymB4W2cVFZca66Ukmq911/vmfv24+2AWlalT5//AffDbxB1jeLyqxHJ9MV2V nQn/6fcvSIa7sfECKzDzx+aNyREOZCr5rbiF7mazexqDtH+TaELjO/ItARTwXZmWO+N/ 2e6w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXD2IEg0/1aKb791T6Sg2gcenSOVrfdaNwdOchnd5mM3vAtjIv9 7EfZ484/EDR3l6oDbLsqmm0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzmu3vaigCwppjYS4muPDUAldM5iKbaElApIsRBx6TPqEU1z95pn4psgHoLDBtlj4BQNT+F/Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:36af:: with SMTP id t44mr1894983pjb.25.1578531857724; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.69.45.46] ([192.19.223.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 12sm5219127pfn.177.2020.01.08.17.04.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:04:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/32] elx: libefc_sli: queue create/destroy/parse routines To: Hannes Reinecke , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: maier@linux.ibm.com, dwagner@suse.de, bvanassche@acm.org, Ram Vegesna References: <20191220223723.26563-1-jsmart2021@gmail.com> <20191220223723.26563-5-jsmart2021@gmail.com> <07c171f7-3d2c-a3ce-37ed-2b02f00fa6b2@suse.de> From: James Smart Message-ID: <1b9bf0ea-3667-6109-152b-65af80459d43@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:04:15 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <07c171f7-3d2c-a3ce-37ed-2b02f00fa6b2@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 1/7/2020 11:45 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Hmm. Why do you return -EFC_FAIL here, and EFC_FAIL in the two cases above? > Do you differentiate between EFC_FAIL and -EFC_FAIL? > If so you should probably use different #defines ... > ... > > '0'? Why not EFC_FAIL/EFC_SUCCESS? > ... > EFC_FAIL? > > Cheers, > > Hannes > We will remove all -1, -EFC_FAIL and return only EFC_SUCCESS/EFC_FAIL. Thanks -- james