On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:34 AM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 Shall I do the swap then? I don't think it has been discussed, and I don't see any downsides from doing so, but I don't really see a scenario in which someone would want to get and set at the same time either. YiFei Zhu
