| /linux/fs/xfs/scrub/ |
| H A D | parent.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | dir.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/Documentation/filesystems/ |
| H A D | porting.rst | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/gfs2/ |
| H A D | export.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/ |
| H A D | readdir.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/fat/ |
| H A D | dir.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/exportfs/ |
| H A D | expfs.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/overlayfs/ |
| H A D | readdir.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/ocfs2/ |
| H A D | dir.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | journal.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/nfsd/ |
| H A D | nfs4recover.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | vfs.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/ecryptfs/ |
| H A D | file.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/arch/alpha/kernel/ |
| H A D | osf_sys.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/reiserfs/ |
| H A D | xattr.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/fs/afs/ |
| H A D | dir.c | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /linux/include/linux/ |
| H A D | fs.h | diff 25885a35a72007cf28ec5f9ba7169c5c798f7167 Tue Aug 16 17:57:56 CEST 2022 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Change calling conventions for filldir_t
filldir_t instances (directory iterators callbacks) used to return 0 for
"OK, keep going" or -E... for "stop". Note that it's *NOT* how the
error values are reported - the rules for those are callback-dependent
and ->iterate{,_shared}() instances only care about zero vs. non-zero
(look at emit_dir() and friends).
So let's just return bool ("should we keep going?") - it's less confusing
that way. The choice between "true means keep going" and "true means
stop" is bikesheddable; we have two groups of callbacks -
do something for everything in directory, until we run into problem
and
find an entry in directory and do something to it.
The former tended to use 0/-E... conventions - -E<something> on failure.
The latter tended to use 0/1, 1 being "stop, we are done".
The callers treated anything non-zero as "stop", ignoring which
non-zero value did they get.
"true means stop" would be more natural for the second group; "true
means keep going" - for the first one. I tried both variants and
the things like
if allocation failed
something = -ENOMEM;
return true;
just looked unnatural and asking for trouble.
[folded suggestion from Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]
Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|