[00/15] staging: exfat: Clean up return codes

Message

Valdis Klētnieks Oct. 24, 2019, 3:53 p.m. UTC

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

 drivers/staging/exfat/exfat.h        |  24 +--
 drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_blkdev.c |  18 +-
 drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_cache.c  |   4 +-
 drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_core.c   | 202 ++++++++++----------
 drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c  | 269 ++++++++++++++-------------
 5 files changed, 249 insertions(+), 268 deletions(-)

Comments

Joe Perches Oct. 24, 2019, 4:23 p.m. UTC | #1

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.

Valdis Klētnieks Oct. 24, 2019, 4:45 p.m. UTC | #2

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:23:24 -0700, Joe Perches said:

> 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)

I was keeping an eye open for that, and didn't see any.

An interesting case is the FFS_EOF patch, which fixes an actual bug. If you did
a read for length 0, it would return FFS_EOF (==15) - which would be
interpreted as the number of bytes returned by read().