On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:23 AM YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yeah it felt like we only needed one helper for the parameters and > return values to be unambiguous. But if two better avoid confusion for > users, we can do that. > > YiFei Zhu > [...] > > > > > > > > One question, if the program want to retrieve existing errno_val, and > > > > set a different one, it needs to call the helper twice, right? I guess > > > it > > > > is possible to do that in one call with a "swap" logic. Would this work? > > > > > Actually, how about we split this into two helpers:bpf_set_errno() and > > > bpf_get_errno(). This should avoid some confusion in long term. > > > > We've agreed on the single helper during bpf office hours (about 2 weeks > > ago), but we can do two, I don't think it matters that much. I see. If we agreed on this syntax, I won't object. Thanks, Song
