From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755575Ab3ALCtR (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:49:17 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:40353 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755069Ab3ALCtQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:49:16 -0500 Message-ID: <50F0CF13.9000106@oracle.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:48:51 +0800 From: Jeff Liu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Chinner CC: Abhijit Pawar , Ben Myers , Alex Elder , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs/xfs remove obsolete simple_strto References: <1357740282-2377-1-git-send-email-abhi.c.pawar@gmail.com> <50EFB2FE.2000307@oracle.com> <20130111225246.GO3120@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20130111225246.GO3120@dastard> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/12/2013 06:52 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:36:46PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: >> On 01/09/2013 10:04 PM, Abhijit Pawar wrote: >>> This patch replaces usages of obsolete simple_strtoul with kstrtoint in xfs_args and suffix_strtoul. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pawar >>> --- >>> + if (kstrtoint(value, 10, &dswidth)) >>> + return EINVAL; >>> } else if (!strcmp(this_char, MNTOPT_32BITINODE)) { >>> mp->m_flags |= XFS_MOUNT_SMALL_INUMS; >>> } else if (!strcmp(this_char, MNTOPT_64BITINODE)) { >>> >> checkpatch.pl show warning if we return EINVAL as below: >> WARNING: return of an errno should typically be -ve (return -EINVAL) >> >> Can we just ignore such code style issue? > > Returning a positive error is not a code style issue. It's a > correctness issue. the core of the XFS code returns positive error > numbers as that's the way it was done on Irix (where the XFs code > comes from). The rest of the Linux code tends to use negative values > for error returns, and we've never converted the XFS code base to > negative errors. > > You should always feel free to ignore checkpatch warnings that make > no sense. I haven't used checkpatch now for several years - I > stopped using it when it got too noisy warning about uselesss, > trivial things in the XFS code base.... Thanks for the clarification, that would save me time to handle checkpatch warnings against XFS in the future. :) Cheers, -Jeff